Iran’s War Against The United States

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Iran’s War Against The United States

by Jay Reding · June 7th, 2007

TigerHawk takes a detailed look at Iran’s proxy war against the United States. It’s become indisputable that Iranian agents are arming Iraqi insurgent groups — even NATO is confirming it. Now evidence is being uncovered which indicates that the Iranians are arming the Taliban in Afghanistan as well.

We can’t keep pretending that Iran and the United States are not in a de facto state of war. No amount of fruitless negotiation is going to change Tehran’s dream of establishing regional hegemony. We need to be taking a much harder line towards Tehran, which may mean the use of military force.

We cannot simply let the Ahmadinejad regime continue to develop nuclear weapons and provide arms to terrorist groups across the region. The nightmare scenario is that both come together and the Iranians give a working nuclear device to a terrorist group — if that happens, a major allied city will be attacked and the death toll will be catastrophic. To put one’s trust in a messianic madman like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and assume that the Iranian government would not do such a thing is not a safe bet.

We’re in the midst of a war that’s larger than Iraq and Afghanistan, and our enemies know that our cowardly political culture is constraining our actions. We have to recover the initiative, otherwise the results of our weakness will be a Middle East that is controlled by Iran and another Cold War — against an enemy for whom the traditional concepts of deterrence will not apply.


LINK (http://www.jayreding.com/archives/2007/06/07/irans-war-against-the-united-states/)

The current trouble in Gazza can also be attributed to Iran. Are we not in reality already at war?


From another site


16 trucks carrying weapons and large sums of money from Iran were discovered over the past few days en route to Iraq, according to an Iraqi Defence Ministry source.

Speaking to the Iraqi daily Al-Mashreq, the source said that the weapons included rifles, mortar rounds, and explosives. He said that those arrested admitted to being agents of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), and said that lodging had been provided for them in Samara, Balad, Najaf, and Latifiyeh.

The individuals revealed that they work working on behalf of the MOIS in conjunction with Iran’s Fajr Forces. During interrogation the Iranian agents also revealed the names of a number of Fajr commanders and MOIS agents whom they worked for.

Yet I hear those of you in Europe think its all over blown. It looks like Europe in the 30s to me.

[Lord Winter]

Right now we really have to left them off with nothing more then a warning a few sanctions. The U.S. dosn't have the strength to fight a third war without completly mobilizing our population. Something which should already be done for Iraq if we want to stand a chance at winning. Secondly an invasion of Iran could esaily turn into another Iraq. The terrian in fact is perfect for a gurrilla war. Plenty of mountains and stuff to hide in.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The U.S. dosn't have the strength to fight a third war without completly mobilizing our population. Something which should already be done for Iraq if we want to stand a chance at winning.

So is it time to :daisy: or get off the pot? Remember also that the Iranians are not arabs and their is much dislike for them in the region. These guys are fine with taking their money and guns but I dont think they want them telling them what to do. What is the alternative? Talk to them like Chamberlain did with Hitler? Even the anti semitsim reeks of nazi Germany. Will the world wake up before they have nukes? Just imagine suicide bombers on a greater scale.

[Navaros]

It’s become indisputable that Iranian agents are arming Iraqi insurgent groups

I wouldn't say this is indisputable as there seems to be scant if any hard evidence of this.

However, even if it is happening, so what. The USA itself is arming Insurgents, and then telling them to go kill Al-Qaida. Therefore if the article is to be believed, then the USA must be in a proxy war with itself also.

[Fragony]

Yet I hear those of you in Europe think its all over blown. It looks like Europe in the 30s to me.

Our dhimmi's are way too busy with domestic apleasement. Anyway, the day they can build a bomb Israel will destroy their facilities, or let america do it. Probably the latter. I am not that worried about Iran, whatever they are shooting at us probably makes a 360 before landing on their own heads, and if it actually reaches europe we can just shoot it down with patriots.

[KrooK]

Gawain could you finish with that propaganda plz :) You can say "we are able to win with Iran" but at the moment USA is far to weak to do it.
Into Afghanistan and Iraq you had strong support from people of these countries (they hate you now but its different issue). You can't expect it into Iran.
There are same people into Iran like those who stopped Alexander on 4 years. People there are united into hate of America. Furthermore they are pround from themselves and they are better democracy than any muslim country exept Turkey. So THEY HAVE SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN DEFEND which is half of succes.
Of course it will be easy to attack them from air and make big damage. But if you want win there, you have to use air forces. And this will be never performed without great loses. I don't think any other country support you there (even mine) which means that you will have to sacrifice your American boys.
Another issue is weapon. Iraq had practically no new weapon and no one supported it (even if your info is real - I don't believe American agencies because of CIA propaganda). Iran is able to buy as much Russian/Chineese modern gun, as they want.
We can't forget that Iran is not Germany into 30ties. Iranians don't claim that half of Asia should belong to them. They are simply strongest country into that Region (I count Israel and Turkey as Euro Region) and they deserved on hegemony. And there is something else. I don't remember Iran terrorists but I remember war criminals or terrorists from countries that America love support (Saudi Arabia, Israel).:oops:

So all in all - you (Americans) can attack Iran, but on your own. :2thumbsup: Don't scream for help when you will be loosing.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain could you finish with that propaganda plz :) You can say "we are able to win with Iran" but at the moment USA is far to weak to do it.

Thats a quite convoluted statement.


Into Afghanistan and Iraq you had strong support from people of these countries (they hate you now but its different issue). You can't expect it into Iran.

Then its all lies that most young Iranians dont like their government.

Im not a war monger but dont you people see the writing on the wall. Again this is Nazi Germany all over again. The longer the world waits to take action the harder it will be to stop these maniacs. Their attacking us as we speak. There is already a war going on is my point.


wouldn't say this is indisputable as there seems to be scant if any hard evidence of this.

Iranian Flow Of Weapons Increasing, Officials Say (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/02/AR2007060201020.html)


Iranian Flow Of Weapons Increasing, Officials Say
Arms Shipments Tracked To Iraqi, Afghan Groups

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 3, 2007; Page A14

Iran has increased arms shipments to both Iraq's Shiite extremists and Afghanistan's Taliban in recent weeks in an apparent attempt to pressure American and other Western troops operating in its two strategic neighbors, according to senior U.S. and European officials.

In Iraq, Iranian 240mm rockets, which have a range of up to 30 miles and could significantly change the battlefield, have been used recently by Shiite extremists against U.S. and British targets in Basra and Baghdad, the officials said. Three of the rockets have targeted U.S. facilities in Baghdad's Green Zone, and one came very close to hitting the U.S. Embassy in the Iraqi capital, according to the U.S. officials.

U.S. Says Iran Supplying Weapons to Iraq Militias (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7361046)


U.S. Says Iran Supplying Weapons to Iraq Militias

Listen to this story... by Jamie Tarabay

Iraqi soldier secures the site where a car bomb exploded
Enlarge
Ahmad al-Rubaye

An Iraqi army soldier secures the site where a car bomb exploded at Baghdad's al-Mansur neighborhood, Feb. 11, 2007. At least one person was killed and three others were wounded in the blast. AFP/Getty Images



All Things Considered, February 11, 2007 · U.S. officials say they have evidence that Iran is supplying weapons to Iraqi extremist groups. They also say they have proof showing that orders to these militant groups come from the highest levels in Iran's government.

The American officials spoke on condition of anonymity. No recording devices were allowed at the briefing, but those speaking said they were comfortable with their claims.

There was a slideshow depicting three main routes from Iran into Iraq which, the officials maintain, are used to smuggle in weapons and weapons parts. Some weapons parts were also on display in the briefing room including the mortar round parts that an explosives expert says was manufactured in Iran. The expert also presented a particular brand of rocket-propelled grenade that he said was manufactured only in Iran.

But the U.S. officials focused mainly on a deadlier version of the improvised explosive device: the explosively formed penetrator. It's a tin-can-shaped explosive covered with a lid of copper that turns into molten rock and pierces through armored vehicles. The officials said the use of this weapon has nearly doubled since it was first introduced in May 2004. More than 170 coalition forces have been killed by it, they said, and more than 620 have been wounded.

Iran was operating in Iraq through extremist groups, the officials claim. They said that among those groups were radical elements of the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr.

The officials again noted the detention of five Iranian men in a raid last month. They said one was a senior operations chief for the Quds Force, an arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which answers to Iran's religious leaders.

[Don Corleone]

Gawain, there's a world of difference between being dissatisfied with your government and welcoming in foreign conquerers. If that wasn't the case, the USA would have been flying the flag of foreign conquerers for much of its history.

I don't think you're fully grasping the size of the task you're proposing. You seem to think you're going to have a 1 week cakewalk, the Iranians will fold with no resistance, and within the matter of a month, they'll be welcoming us as heroes.

I'm sorry Gawain, it's simply not going to happen that way. The Iranians will fight for every inch. Yes, IF we send enough troops (and nothing in the White House makes me think they're wise enough to hold off until they have enough troops), and I'm talking 7 or 8 divisions, minimum, we could probably wear them down eventually. But what do you think is going to happen in the meantime? We have thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in virtually unfortified positions. You don't think Iranian artillery is going to find them?

Do you really think we're going to take them out with 1 punch? I don't. You're more right about the WWII analogy then you realize. When we started, it was far from certain that we would be victorious, and we acted that way. If we invade Iran, it will be a long, ugly, messy affair, and if we don't go total war, ala WWII style with drafts and sequestering our economy and women running the military industrial machine with every able bodied man in training or in the field, we will lose.

And what about Pakistan, at that point? What about Indonesia? Syria? Are we just going to keep invading every country that pisses us off?

I thought you were an isolationist?

[Odin]

Im not a war monger but dont you people see the writing on the wall. Again this is Nazi Germany all over again. The longer the world waits to take action the harder it will be to stop these maniacs.

I see it very clearly.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain, there's a world of difference between being dissatisfied with your government and welcoming in foreign conquerers. If that wasn't the case, the USA would have been flying the flag of foreign conquerers for much of its history.

No kidding



I don't think you're fully grasping the size of the task you're proposing. You seem to think you're going to have a 1 week cakewalk, the Iranians will fold with no resistance, and within the matter of a month, they'll be welcoming us as heroes.

I'm sorry Gawain, it's simply not going to happen that way. The Iranians will fight for every inch. Yes, IF we send enough troops (and nothing in the White House makes me think they're wise enough to hold off until they have enough troops), and I'm talking 7 or 8 divisions, minimum, we could probably wear them down eventually. But what do you think is going to happen in the meantime? We have thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in virtually unfortified positions. You don't think Iranian artillery is going to find them?

Do you really think we're going to take them out with 1 punch? I don't. You're more right about the WWII analogy then you realize. When we started, it was far from certain that we would be victorious, and we acted that way. If we invade Iran, it will be a long, ugly, messy affair, and if we don't go total war, ala WWII style with drafts and sequestering our economy and women running the military industrial machine with every able bodied man in training or in the field, we will lose.

And what about Pakistan, at that point? What about Indonesia? Syria? Are we just going to keep invading every country that pisses us off?

I thought you were an isolationist?

And I am an isloationist. But they are attacking us and killing our soldiers. If thats not war what is?

Are you done with your rant? :laugh4:

What Im suggesting is world war three. Im not talking about any cake walk far from it. This is not just a US Iranian problem.



And what about Pakistan, at that point? What about Indonesia? Syria? Are we just going to keep invading every country that pisses us off?

Syria maybe. Is Pakistan or Indonesia supplying men and arms that are killing our soldiers?



I see it very clearly.

Im glad Im not alone. Its like the old oil change commercial. You can pay me now or you can pay me later. The problem is later costs a lot more.

[Odin]

I don't think you're fully grasping the size of the task you're proposing. You seem to think you're going to have a 1 week cakewalk, the Iranians will fold with no resistance, and within the matter of a month, they'll be welcoming us as heroes.

Well Don we disagree, for the simple reason Gawain in his brilliance hasnt proposed anything by way of military action in this thread. He has given absolutely no specific at all as to what he thinks should be done.


I'm sorry Gawain, it's simply not going to happen that way. The Iranians will fight for every inch. Yes, IF we send enough troops (and nothing in the White House makes me think they're wise enough to hold off until they have enough troops), and I'm talking 7 or 8 divisions, minimum, we could probably wear them down eventually. But what do you think is going to happen in the meantime? We have thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in virtually unfortified positions. You don't think Iranian artillery is going to find them?

To a large degree this assumes invasion, invasion is unlikely for the reasons you cite, but air strikes are more plausable.


If we invade Iran, it will be a long, ugly, messy affair, and if we don't go total war, ala WWII style with drafts and sequestering our economy and women running the military industrial machine with every able bodied man in training or in the field, we will lose.

Big "if", and the ending "we will lose" I disagree if infact what you state would happen came to fruition, a WWII total war effort.

Again I might have missed Gawain commenting on an invasion, if I did I appologize, but its clear to me that the force structure for air strikes against nuclear facilities exsist right now, and most likely thats the course of action (if any) that would occur.


Right after I clicked post Gawain posted:
What Im suggesting is world war three. Im not talking about any cake walk far from it. This is not just a US Iranian problem.

So that pretty much negates most of my post.

[Slyspy]

Sorry Gawain, but you are a war mongerer. Of the worst kind because you don't seem to be aware of the consequences. You are most certainly not an isloationist, nor a libertarian, if you believe that foreign military ventures and total war are necessary and desirable.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So that pretty much negates most of my post.

No I would try your way first. Im not saying lets ratchet it up and all go to war today. But these guys have been poking and pushing us around for years looking to see what they can get away with and I think theve pretty much come to the same conclusion as OBL. That we are a paper tiger and that the rest of the west is apaethitic. Its time to put up or shut up. They have to take us seriously. But if this guy really thinks its his duty to bring about the end of the world what can you do? What if you have a nation that itself is a giant suicide bomber threatening to explode?

Im saying that if we do go to war it has to be a united front. Not just the US vs Iran. Doing anything on our own again would not only be foolish but reckless.

[Odin]

Im saying that if we do go to war it has to be a united front. Not just the US vs Iran. Doing anything on our own again would not only be foolish but reckless.

I agree a lot of the west is apathetic, a united front inst necessary at all, because the goal shouldnt be elimination of Iran, regime change, or societal correction.

It should be to eliminate thier ability to produce nuclear capabilities. That can be achieved via airstrikes by the U.S. alone.

Look at the current deployment of forces, this is exactly the course that will happen, as the capability is there to achieve airstrikes only.

[Don Corleone]

I disagree about the airstrikes and slowly building up aggression. This is an all or none affair. It's like being a little-bit pregnant, it just can't be done. We're either going to go to war with Iran, and in doing so we need to do everything we can do to see to it that the war is over as quickly as possible and with the fewest casualties to our side as possible, or we need to find alternate outlets for our hostility.

Airstrikes will mean US troop casualties in the hundreds, if not thousands. Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are not in fortified positions. Iran's response to an airstrike will be short range and medium range missile fire and artillery shelling into our troops in these areas.

I don't see any middle ground here. Either we hit Iran quickly, with overwhelming force and get them wrapped up as quickly as possible (I'm talking Shock & Awe and then some, followed by 10 or 11 division, the 7 or 8 I cited was to actually have a shot at winning even long term).

We also need to be formulating NOW an extraction policy for getting the hell out of there when we're done. Identify what goals we wish to accomplish, do them, and then getting the Hell out of Dodge.

That's what I recommend if we do anything. I still contend it's just going to breed more anger and distance our allies from us further. I think it's a mistake, and I think we need to start looking to see if there's anything we can do to find some sort of middle ground with the Iranians. For the past 30 years, we have steadfastly refused to even have diplomatic contact with them, let alone negotiate any sort of agreements. Clearly the deep-freeze diplomacy ain't working. Neither are our embargoes. We can't even get Britain and Israel to quit trading with them, let alone China or Russia.

[Don Corleone]

As for getting anybody else to sign on with us for engaging in a fight with Iran, what planet are you guys living on? The only people who would sign on for that are the Israelis, and we're trying to keep them out of it. Do you really see Britain, or Australia or Canada sending troops (or jets) to Tehran?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Do you really see Britain, or Australia or Canada sending troops (or jets) to Tehran?

Hopefully it will never come to that. But if they dont at least stand behind us in this I think the world is in deep doo doo.

[Odin]

[QUOTE]I disagree about the airstrikes and slowly building up aggression. This is an all or none affair. It's like being a little-bit pregnant, it just can't be done.

If you believe its all or nothing your entitled, my position is to stop thier nuclear capability only, Im not intrested in how they run thier affairs internally.


or we need to find alternate outlets for our hostility.

Maybe we can give tax breaks to corporations that sell them nuclear technology? Sarcasm aside Don, are you of the mindset that Iran isnt going to develop a military application for nuclear technology? If you are, okay we disagree again, if your not then isnt the hostility justified? I concede it comes down to intent, but are you a gambler?


Airstrikes will mean US troop casualties in the hundreds, if not thousands. Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are not in fortified positions. Iran's response to an airstrike will be short range and medium range missile fire and artillery shelling into our troops in these areas.

Agreed, but I dont think this will happen tomorrow, and if I had my way the troops would be out of the middle east anyway. that said, I agree that it puts troops in harms way, war does that, but there is nothing procluding a drawn down of troops before the strike occurs. Seems to me thats going to happen around sept anyway when MR Bush looses his republican blockade in the senate.

Think the 2 carrier strike forces will still be in hormuz during the draw down and after? I do.


I still contend it's just going to breed more anger and distance our allies from us further.

more then there is now?

I
think it's a mistake, and I think we need to start looking to see if there's anything we can do to find some sort of middle ground with the Iranians. For the past 30 years, we have steadfastly refused to even have diplomatic contact with them, let alone negotiate any sort of agreements. Clearly the deep-freeze diplomacy ain't working. Neither are our embargoes.

I agree to this, I personally think Rice should go to Tehran and talk to them one on one and attempt to find a way out of it. However back in reality, the ideal situation rarely occurs, and thus it behooves us to discuss the likelyhood of possibilities within the constraints of said reality.

[Odin]

As for getting anybody else to sign on with us for engaging in a fight with Iran, what planet are you guys living on? The only people who would sign on for that are the Israelis, and we're trying to keep them out of it. Do you really see Britain, or Australia or Canada sending troops (or jets) to Tehran?

I have been clear on my position in the past about the antiquated alliance structures we are in. We need to get out of them and not rely on alliances. thats why total war needs to be total war, not the halfassed wars Bush has us in.

Total war with Iran isnt necessary, no one needs to send troops there.

[Slyspy]

I have been clear on my position in the past about the antiquated alliance structures we are in. We need to get out of them and not rely on alliances. thats why total war needs to be total war, not the halfassed wars Bush has us in.

Total war with Iran isnt necessary, no one needs to send troops there.

Yes, total war! And while you screw your economy up completely you can drag the rest of us down with you. Thanks! Maybe if we can make enough guns to sell to both sides we can keep our economy going....

Fantasists.

[Odin]

Yes, total war! And while you screw your economy up completely you can drag the rest of us down with you. Thanks! Maybe if we can make enough guns to sell to both sides we can keep our economy going....

Fantasists.

Our economy will be just fine thanks, as far as you going down with us, perhaps it will be a wonderful motivator for you and your european cohorts to approve the EU constitution so you wont be dragged down by anyone else? :inquisitive:

[Don Corleone]

Of course Iran is developing nuclear technology for military capability. Defensive or offensive remains in doubt, but I don't think anybody but the most gullible polly-anna out there actually believes AJ that it's to help them shift off of oil dependence :laugh4: .

My point is this... airstrikes are going to inflame the situation. Iran will not just sit back and let us destroy what they've spent 12 years and billions of dollars developing (not to mention the huge hit to their national prestige). There will be consequences. Serious ones. Do you really think the American public is just going to sit back after your airstrikes, when the Iranians retaliate by bombing all our airbases in Afghanistan, and their sons start coming home in body bags in with "well, it was a price we had to pay, at least they're not nuclear armed" ?

No, here's how this will play out:

-We launch airstrikes to reduce (we won't be able to eliminate) their nuclear capabilites

-We get admonished by a host of other nations.

-Iran launches artillery barrages at our positions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What do you think comes next? We just sit back and take it? I don't.

-US launches a 'shock and awe' style bombardment against Iran to reduce their ability to shell troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

-Iran sends divisions of troops into Iraq.

-We wind up where I said we would.

This is all but an inescapable progression starting with airstrikes. Which is why I think it's foolish to do anything so half-assed. Realize what's coming next and take away their capability for it BEFORE they do it if you have any intentions of any military strikes.

But again, I say no, not airstrikes, not an invasion. A military response is not the right way to go here.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But again, I say no, not airstrikes, not an invasion. A military response is not the right way to go here.

What is your solution then?

[Petrus]

That's what I recommend if we do anything. I still contend it's just going to breed more anger and distance our allies from us further. I think it's a mistake, and I think we need to start looking to see if there's anything we can do to find some sort of middle ground with the Iranians. For the past 30 years, we have steadfastly refused to even have diplomatic contact with them, let alone negotiate any sort of agreements. Clearly the deep-freeze diplomacy ain't working. Neither are our embargoes. We can't even get Britain and Israel to quit trading with them, let alone China or Russia.

I think that's the biggest problem.

A total lack of diplomatic and commercial relationship leaves only one option, sabres rattling while other negotiate in your place or war.
The limits of this system can be shown even with a small and weak country such as North Corea.

In the case of Iran it lets you powerless and passive, depending on other's goodwill. This is never a good situation and I think it makes things really bad when mutual relationship is degraded, such as it is now after the Irak fiasco.

You can see the difference with a country such as Pakistan, hard line islamist, terrorist active supporter, atomic bomb owner and atomic technology seller dictatorship. The relative danger represented by Pakistan seems much greater than the one of Iran. But Iran is presented as something utterly evil while it is possible to negotiate some forms of agreements with Pakistan.

The tools used to deal with those countries are simply different as are the objectives they can manage to reach.

By choosing permanent confrontation, as long as you do not have the means to fully dominate military, economically, politically and diplomatically your opponent your only reachable objective is confrontation.

If you want to reach some form of compromise, than you must negotiate, put economic or political pressure, hence have some sort of normal relationship with your opponent.

[Odin]

Of course Iran is developing nuclear technology for military capability. Defensive or offensive remains in doubt, but I don't think anybody but the most gullible polly-anna out there actually believes AJ that it's to help them shift off of oil dependence :laugh4: .

Okay so we agree on this, but lest we forget that Iran is also the nation that wants to wipe israel off the map, and considers the U.S. "the great satan". Sounds offensive in nature to me, again I understand why they want the bomb, but are you a gambler Don? Im not.



My point is this... airstrikes are going to inflame the situation. Iran will not just sit back and let us destroy what they've spent 12 years and billions of dollars developing (not to mention the huge hit to their national prestige). There will be consequences. Serious ones.

Oh I know that, but far less serious if it was a total war invasion with the deaths of thousands, if not 10s of thousands of military.


Do you really think the American public is just going to sit back after your airstrikes, when the Iranians retaliate by bombing all our airbases in Afghanistan, and their sons start coming home in body bags in with "well, it was a price we had to pay, at least they're not nuclear armed" ?

I think the voices will be louder if they do infact have the bomb and instead of airbases, its boston or nashua, and grandma comes home in the body bag.



-We launch airstrikes to reduce (we won't be able to eliminate) their nuclear capabilites

agreed.


-We get admonished by a host of other nations.

happens everyday,multiple times over and over hardly a new circumstance.


-Iran launches artillery barrages at our positions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, and they get admonished (of course not as strongly) for attacking thier neibhors.


What do you think comes next? We just sit back and take it? I don't.

I think it becomes a protracted engagement of limited warfare to be honest Don, I dont think we will engage land forces, in the case of Iran and airstrikes I suspect that after a month or two of bombing back and forth some sod at the U.N. will broker a cease fire.


-US launches a 'shock and awe' style bombardment against Iran to reduce their ability to shell troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Possibly, but Im not sold on that one just yet, you are swaying me though.


-Iran sends divisions of troops into Iraq.

After having bombed afghanistan as well? So a two front war on land (with non U.S. nations) and sea and air war? sounds ambitous.


-We wind up where I said we would.

You just want me to say your right. :laugh4:


Realize what's coming next and take away their capability for it BEFORE they do it if you have any intentions of any military strikes.
yes I agree, thats pretty much my point don


But again, I say no, not airstrikes, not an invasion. A military response is not the right way to go here.

It may not be, but the evidence supports that that is the way we are going, I understand there are glimmers in there of an opportunity to go another course, but one only needs to look at recent U.S. military history (start with grenada) to see the course this looks to be heading.

[Don Corleone]

What is your solution then?

First, you're talking as though we actually have the option of stopping them from developing the bomb. Airstrikes will not end their nuclear program, it will just set it back. It requires a full scale invasion to actually end it.

Second, any hope we had of 'keeping people from developing nuclear weapons' ended when Pakistan and India did it. You can't stop Iran from becoming nuclear if they really really want to, short of occupying the entire country. The one thing that can be said about Iraq is that it did finally end Saddam's nuclear ambitions (though I still think it was a mistake).

The way to proceed is to find something Iran wants more. Money, they have that. Technology? Not a lot of that, on their own. Normalized relations with the United States? Now there's something they might be willing to discuss. A role in determining the future of their neighborhood? Now we're getting warm.

What's wrong with sitting down with them and laying a revolver and a piece of carrot cake on the table in front of them and ask them which of the two they want us to give them?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What's wrong with sitting down with them and laying a revolver and a piece of carrot cake on the table in front of them and ask them which of the two they want us to give them?

You have to have a loaded revolver and they have to believe you will use it. But even this logic doesnt work here. And people worry about god talking to GWB.



Iranian President Mahmoud's Ahmadinejad's mystical pre-occupation with the coming of a Shiite Islamic messiah figure – the Mahdi – is raising concerns that a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic could trigger the kind of global conflagration he envisions will set the stage for the end of the world.

While Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been making headlines lately by questioning whether the Holocaust actually happened, by suggesting Israel should be moved to Europe and by demanding the Jewish state be wiped off the face of the earth, his apocalyptic religious zealotry has received less attention.

In a videotaped meeting with Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli in Tehran, Ahmadinejad discussed candidly a strange, paranormal experience he had while addressing the United Nations in New York last September.

He recounts how he found himself bathed in light throughout the speech. But this wasn't the light directed at the podium by the U.N. and television cameras. It was, he said, a light from heaven.


Ahmadinejad at the U.N.

According to a transcript of his comments, obtained and translated by Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, Ahmadinejad wasn't the only one who noticed the unearthly light. One of his aides brought it to his attention.

The Iranian president recalled being told about it by one of his delegation: "When you began with the words ‘in the name of Allah,' I saw a light coming, surrounding you and protecting you to the end."

Ahmadinejad agreed that he sensed the same thing.

"On the last day when I was speaking, one of our group told me that when I started to say 'Bismillah Muhammad,' he saw a green light come from around me, and I was placed inside this aura," he says. "I felt it myself. I felt that the atmosphere suddenly changed, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, all the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't move an eyelid, I'm not exaggerating. They were looking as if a hand was holding them there, and had just opened their eyes – Alhamdulillah!"

Ahmadinejad's "vision" at the U.N. is strangely reminiscent and alarmingly similar to statements he has made about his personal role in ushering in the return of the Shiite Muslim messiah.

He sees his main mission, as he recounted in a Nov. 16 speech in Tehran, as to "pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi, may Allah hasten his reappearance."

According to Shiites, the 12th imam disappeared as a child in the year 941. When he returns, they believe, he will reign on earth for seven years, before bringing about a final judgment and the end of the world.

Ahmadinejad is urging Iranians to prepare for the coming of the Mahdi by turning the country into a mighty and advanced Islamic society and by avoiding the corruption and excesses of the West.

All Iran is buzzing about the Mahdi, the 12th imam and the role Iran and Ahmadinejad are playing in his anticipated return. There's a new messiah hotline. There are news agencies especially devoted to the latest developments.

"People are anxious to know when and how will He rise; what they must do to receive this worldwide salvation," says Ali Lari, a cleric at the Bright Future Institute in Iran's religious center of Qom. "The timing is not clear, but the conditions are more specific," he adds. "There is a saying: 'When the students are ready, the teacher will come.'"

For his part, Ahmadinejad is living up to at least part of his call to the faithful. According to reports, he lives so modestly that declared assets include only a 30-year-old car, an even older house and an empty bank account.

Ahmadinejad and others in Iran are deadly serious about the imminent return of the 12th imam, who will prompt a global battle between good and evil (with striking parallels to biblical accounts of "Armageddon").

An institute set up in 2004 for the study and dissemination of information about the Mahdi now has a staff of 160 and influence in the schools and children's magazines.

In Iran, theologians say endtimes beliefs appeal to one-fifth of the population. And the Jamkaran mosque east of Qom, 60 miles south of Tehran, is where the link between devotees and the Mahdi is closest.

Ahmadinejad's cabinet has given $17 million to Jamkaran.

Shiite writings describe events surrounding the return of the Mahdi in apocalyptic terms. In one scenario, the forces of evil would come from Syria and Iraq and clash with forces of good from Iran. The battle would commence at Kufa – the Iraqi town near the holy city of Najaf.

Even more controversial is Ahmadinejad's repeated invocation of Imam Mahdi, known as "the Savior of Times." According to Shiite tradition, Imam Mahdi will appear on Judgment Day to herald a truly just government.

Missed by some observers in Ahmadinejad's speech at the U.N. was his call to the "mighty Lord" to hasten the emergence of "the promised one," the one who "will fill this world with justice and peace."

Who stands in the Mahdi's way?

A top priority of Ahmadinejad is "to challenge America, which is trying to impose itself as the final salvation of the human being, and insert its unjust state [in the region]," says Hamidreza Taraghi, head of the conservative Islamic Coalition Society.

Taraghi says the U.S. is "trying to place itself as the new Mahdi." This may mean no peace with Iran, he adds, "unless America changes its hegemonic ... thinking, doesn't use nuclear weapons, [or] impose its will on other nations."

Their not worried


Tehran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking during a press conference in Tehran on Tuesday said that the United States would not be capable of harming Iran.

'The US might still want to harm Iran but they are not capable of doing so,' Ahmadinejad said in response to questions on the possibility of a US military strike against Iran.

LINK (http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1313506.php/US_not_capable_of_harming_Iran_says_Ahmadinejad)

[Tribesman]

Is Pakistan or Indonesia supplying men and arms that are killing our soldiers?

Bloody hell ??????
Gawain where the hell have you been for the last decade :dizzy2:


You have to have a loaded revolver and they have to believe you will use it. But even this logic doesnt work here.
At last some sense , it doesn't work because the Iranians stiffed Bush and the neo-cons , and hey the Iranians didn't even have to get tortured to tell the idiots what they wanted to hear.
They know full well that your revolver is badly damaged and cannot fire effectively .

[Don Corleone]

To Gawain's credit, I think he equates Musharaff with 'Pakistan'. Gawain, you need to be made aware that the Taliban receive more arms and aid from elements within the Pakastani military than they do from Iran.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain where the hell have you been for the last decade

Like Iran and now. I dont think so

The pakistani government is sending troops there in civilian clothes. And the same for Indonesia?


At last some sense , it doesn't work because the Iranians stiffed Bush and the neo-cons , and hey the Iranians didn't even have to get tortured to tell the idiots what they wanted to hear.
They know full well that your revolver is badly damaged and cannot fire effectively .

Many have made this mistake before. Our revolver isnt damaged its just that at the moment its only got one chamber charged. Its our will to use it that is seen as our weakness. Even in Iraq I and Im sure many of them see it as a half arse try.

[Fragony]

Most Taliban is from Pakistan, the madrassas practically are an jihadi assembly line, but Pakistan doesn't go there, they don't control it.

[KrooK]

Gawain - don't quote here American sources because they are being censored. If we trusted American sources, no foreign soldiers would be into Iraq (new democratic government would finish with terrorism and make Iraq paradise on earth)

First of all
Iran can fight on 2 fronts there IMO.

On 1 side we have Afghanistan; what is situation of Iran there?

-not many american soldiers
-polish soldiers on the other side of country
-long border they know very well
-well intelligence

On the other hand Iraq;

-2/3 of population claims that Iran is heaven on Earth. Place when they can believe into their God and fight with Evil
-American forces hardly manage to establish something like "peace" (but only during day)
-well intelligence (full or Irani agents according to you Gawain)
-they know how to fight there (they have already fought)

This is reply on your words about fighting on 2 fronts.

Now I will reply why they call you great evil. Maybe because you are calling them Axis of Evil, despite no Iranians took part into attack on WTC?
Maybe because you attacked their neighbours?

I must tell Gawain that you are a bit like Russians nowadays.
You are easy to rush when hearing propaganda. TV told you that Iran is bad so ... Iran is bad. Just like Russians and Estonia. Kremal told Estonia is bad and dangerous for Russia so... Estonia is bad and dangerous for Russia.

[Pannonian]

Gawain, just wait until we're out of there before you try anything, will you? There's a dear.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You are easy to rush when hearing propaganda. TV told you that Iran is bad so ... Iran is bad. Just like Russians and Estonia. Kremal told Estonia is bad and dangerous for Russia so... Estonia is bad and dangerous for Russia.

Do you realize how unrealistic your being here. Do you follow history? I suppose you believe what you do because you have totally unbiased sources where you live LOL. Our press and half or more of our government agree with you. They are just reporting the news they receive. Most certainly are not backers of the current administration. Also Ive seen his speeches. What are we doing televising fake ones? Do we have a double?

[Tribesman]

Like Iran and now. I dont think so

So the past years attacks on American troops patrolling the border havn't been carried out by Pakistans army and last months attack on the US delegation wasn't done by Pakistani soldiers .


Many have made this mistake before. Our revolver isnt damaged its just that at the moment its only got one chamber charged. Its our will to use it that is seen as our weakness. Even in Iraq I and Im sure many of them see it as a half arse try.

Half arsed , I wouldn't even go that far .
As for the charged chamber :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: they are like an excited virgin who has saved enough for a visit to the whore house , paid the money but then shot his load in his pants before he even touched the goods .
He has to go home clean himself up and save some money for another visit and try and get it right next time , because at the moment he cannot afford it and no one will loan him it because they think he will just blow it again .


Most Taliban is from Pakistan, the madrassas practically are an jihadi assembly line, but Pakistan doesn't go there, they don't control it.
What was it that Pakistani general did when he went into Waziristan to "fight" the extremists as an ally in the war on terror ?
He handed out a load of guns and said don't shoot us with them wasn't it .

BTW the al-qaida camps of Afghanistan were under Pakistans directive not the Talibans .

[Fragony]

What was it that Pakistani general did when he went into Waziristan to "fight" the extremists as an ally in the war on terror ?
He handed out a load of guns and said don't shoot us with them wasn't it .


First time I hear about that, but hardly surprising. I meant the pakistani army, they don't control these parts, all jihadi-land.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Half arsed , I wouldn't even go that far

You know we agree here that it was stupid from the start. That from the beggning Iran was the real enemy. At least in the minds of those in charge here.


As for the charged chamber they are like an excited virgin who has saved enough for a visit to the whore house , paid the money but then shot his load in his pants before he even touched the goods .
He has to go home clean himself up and save some money for another visit and try and get it right next time , because at the moment he cannot afford it and no one will loan him it because they think he will just blow it again .

Again I think you are underestimating Americans. If we were to really think that invading Iran would make things better and our only choice you had better hold on to your hat. If it were up to Bush we would be moblising as we speak :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

You know we agree here that it was stupid from the start. That from the beggning Iran was the real enemy. At least in the minds of those in charge here.

The problem there is that it isn't actually Iran that is the real enemy , it is elements in Saudi and Pakistan .

[Don Corleone]

The problem there is that it isn't actually Iran that is the real enemy , it is elements in Saudi and Pakistan . I'll grant you Saudi Arabia has been playing it too clever by half. But if you mean Pakistan the nation, I have to disagree. If you mean elements within Pakistan, even at high levels, then you may have a point. Even so, if extremists in Pakistan wield so much power, why is it they haven't gotten a dirty bomb or worse out to their Al-Queda buddies yet? I think the threat of high-ranking Pakastanis is overplayed. I agree they're there, I just don't think they have the power you seem to think they do.

[Strike For The South]

How far away is Iran from doing something that can harm the USA?

[Pannonian]

How far away is Iran from doing something that can harm the USA?
They could threaten to invade Iraq, and the oil prices would jump up. Woe unto you, and unto America as a whole, though Bush's buddies in the oil industry would be happy as bunnies.

[Fragony]

How far away is Iran from doing something that can harm the USA?

About half a globe, rest assured.

[Strike For The South]

Well thats what Im saying. If Iran invades Iraq today we dont have any other choice than moblize and go to war but if they stay in there own borders we can let them yell and scream all they want but we still have 2 big oceans between us.

[Fragony]

It might just have something to do with a certain country in the middle east that actually can be hit, who have rather powerfull lobby's ~;)

[KrooK]

Gawain - something similar were being told by American officials before Vietnam.
Anyway attack Iran - will be interesting :) Maybe you learn something.
But don't expect Euro support. Poland has good relations with Iran and I generally like that country. It has most interesting history ever.

Now you want attack them. Alexander hardly managed. G-W is idiot comparing with him, so I don't expect your victory.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

but if they stay in there own borders we can let them yell and scream all they want but we still have 2 big oceans between us.

Theve attacked us numerous times and they already have crossed the border into Iraq. It doesnt take an invasoin to threaten the US.


Anyway attack Iran - will be interesting :) Maybe you learn something.But don't expect Euro support. Poland has good relations with Iran and I generally like that country. It has most interesting history ever.

So do you support their goal of eliminating Israel? You like the way they treat their people. Shameless. I didnt say we should go attack them. I said that would be foolish without the support and help f the rest of the world. Its they we have to talk to not Iran.Their beyond talking to.

[71-hour Ahmed]

An American attack on Iran would be economic and diplomatic suicide. Oil prices would soar, and lead to a market fall with all that entails. America would be left without friends - no-one would want to be an American ally and reap the inevitable terrorist response alongside them. The damage to Iraq would possibly be worse; Iran could invade on the ground and I doubt the USA can fight them off AND hold down a massive Iraqi Shi'ite/ Jihadist insurgency. And Afghanistan would also be in a bad position with large scale Iranian incursions on top of the constant attacks from the Taliban.

Never mind the rights or wrongs, the USA is too weak to attack Iran. And you don't start wars you can't be sure that you can finish (like Iraq and Afghanistan have turned into).

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And you don't start wars you can't be sure that you can finish (like Iraq and Afghanistan have turned into).

Was England sure it would win WW2? Sometimes you have no choice. And as Ive said the war has already started.

[71-hour Ahmed]

Was England sure it would win WW2? Sometimes you have no choice. And as Ive said the war has already started.

I was going to edit my sentence to include the word "voluntary" but failed to do so. British involvement in WW2 was involuntary, Iran is not so.

Attacking Iran is not involuntary at present as it does not actually represent a significant threat to American interests- or even Isreali interests. Iran can posture, make noise and do some damage by various means. But unless in a situation where it is willing to collapse as a state it can't do serious harm. Which of course is where it would be if attacked first by America.

America would be better off diplomatically engaging Iran and forcing them to either do business or act like stroppy children without an excuse, which would leave them up a creak without a paddle. Theres no rush to deal with them today; they'll still be there in 5 years time, and only by then could they start to become a potential threat. By which time, they'll probably be under a very different government and in a very different political and diplomatic position.

[ajaxfetish]

I don't think Iran thinks of us as a paper tiger. They've seen that we actually can and will respond to threats, as we now occupy their neighbors both to the east and the west. If anything they feel threatened by us, but they're playing it smart. They haven't done anything that could be taken irrefutably as a declaration of war on their part, and as you say are fighting us by proxy instead. They know that without serious provocation we won't have the will to fight them properly, and if we were to start open hostilities at this point we'd be the one to get the international black eye. Meanwhile they're developing nukes, quite possibly with offensive purposes in mind, but with an ironclad defensive justification considering they're encircled by US troops and that the US considers them part of the 'Axis of Evil.'

And why does a proxy war with Iran have to escalate into a real war? We fought proxy wars with the USSR in both Vietnam and Afghanistan, and I think if either of those had led to open conflict between the US and Russia it would have been disastrous. Let the proxy war with Iran remain by proxy. If we want to hamper their nuclear program, I'd potentially consider airstrikes on nuclear facilities acceptable, but not until we've pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Until then our troops are too exposed. I agree with DC that the best approach now would be to actually open up the lines of communication with Tehran. It wouldn't be the first time that we decided maybe a diplomatic approach was okay with a mortal enemy, and we've managed to avoid wars with both Russia and China as a result. (and apart from the embarrassment, I can't for the life of me think of a reason we haven't opened up diplomatic channels with Cuba, either)

Furthermore, whatever dissent the Iranian population feels toward its government would quickly be overlooked if we started a war with them. I can think of no quicker way to unify the country and shore up internal support for the current regime.



Again I think you are underestimating Americans. If we were to really think that invading Iran would make things better and our only choice you had better hold on to your hat. If it were up to Bush we would be moblising as we speak :laugh4:
If we really thought war with Iran was our only choice I'd agree with you that we'd be pretty unstoppable. Until they blow up a US city with an atomic weapon we're not going to be willing to make such a commitment, though.

Ajax

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If we really thought war with Iran was our only choice I'd agree with you that we'd be pretty unstoppable. Until they blow up a US city with an atomic weapon we're not going to be willing to make such a commitment, though.

Im afraid that was the point I was trying to make. Let us hope the pacifists are correct for once. Nukes make this a whole new ball game. Once they have them there is no turning back.

[Husar]

Well, before you start your total war or WW3, I'd suggest you send some florins to the pope so you won't get excommunicated as well. Now allow me to gather some money for my new residence on the southpole, I don't think I want to be here once you start another big mess.:no:


Ok, maybe I should try to add something serious as well, but I will take the easy way out and agree with Don C.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well, before you start your total war or WW3,

Yeah Im going to start it. All bow down :whip: :laugh4:

[71-hour Ahmed]

Iran is a pretty long away from feasible deployable nuclear weapons.

Never mind getting the raw feedstock properly processed in adequate quantities, they've got to work out how to make it go "boom!" as well. The technical challenges are substantial particularly without a large civilian nuclear industry to provide the specialists and equipment. Look at North Koreas recent failures for example.

And then you need a way of transporting the device to target. Missles - for Iran - are limited and at worst would allow then to threaten Isreal; which isn't really a survival orientated manouver and would just create an unpleasant regional scale MAD scenario.

Delivery by shipping crate could hurt the USA; but what does Iran gain? They'd be a prime suspect and would be in serious danger of hurt in such a scenario. It'd mess up there economy as well, and they want/ need the money. And the willingness of the Iranian government to let their strategic arsenal be sent all the way to US of A and leave them without a bomb for defense?

The only real difference that nuclear weapons in Iran would make as I see is that they would be safe from US invasion, and possibly safe from Isreali attack. But they are all already as the US army is overcommitted elsewhere at present, and I don't think the Isrealis are stupid enough to attack Iran without it being essential to survive. So it would just maintain the current status quo. Its just an nationalistic ego trip, and I doubt it'll survive the next Iranian election when the current leadership gets booted out for their lack of success.

[Tribesman]

Anyway attack Iran - will be interesting :) Maybe you learn something.

Unfortunately they never seem to learn :shrug:


I'll grant you Saudi Arabia has been playing it too clever by half. But if you mean Pakistan the nation, I have to disagree. If you mean elements within Pakistan, even at high levels, then you may have a point.
If I meant all of Pakistan I would have said so:yes: but that would be rather a silly thing to say wouldn't it considering it is a very fractious nation with several civil wars and a couple of international disputes going on .


Even so, if extremists in Pakistan wield so much power, why is it they haven't gotten a dirty bomb or worse out to their Al-Queda buddies yet?
Welll lets see , perhaps its because they (like the Taliban) know that al-qaida are a bunch of nuts who are just as likely to turn round and attack them .:idea2:

[Slyspy]

Our economy will be just fine thanks, as far as you going down with us, perhaps it will be a wonderful motivator for you and your european cohorts to approve the EU constitution so you wont be dragged down by anyone else? :inquisitive:

Lol. I lol because I assume you to be joking.

In general I would agree that intervention in Iran would be a waste of resources. It would be better to use those resources (assuming they exist, which I don't think they do) to help the secularists in Pakistan secure their country. Or to bring the House of Saud down a peg or two.

Or has the WoT finished already? Have we already moved on to the next big thing?

[Lord Winter]

Gawin I don't doubt that we could defeat Iran conventaly but our milltary capability is the only thing in the equation; you have to also factor in the econemy. The dolar is already failing and we're in trillions of dollars of debt and you're telling me we should start WWIII? Do you have any clue how much that would cost. The small scale war in Iraq and Afganastan we have now is already costing 10's of billions of dolars anything resembling total war would easily triple that. Once we have a surplus and you can promise the public will to raise taxes and cut spending to pay for the war we can talk about an invasion.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawin I don't doubt that we could defeat Iran conventaly but our milltary capability is the only thing in the equation; you have to also factor in the econemy. The dolar is already failing and we're in trillions of dollars of debt and you're telling me we should start WWIII? Do you have any clue how much that would cost. The small scale war in Iraq and Afganastan we have now is already costing 10's of billions of dolars anything resembling total war would easily triple that. Once we have a surplus and you can promise the public will to raise taxes and cut spending to pay for the war we can talk about an invasion.

Ill say this one more time slowly so you all understand. I do not want the US to invade Iran unless most of the rest of the world goes along with it. I dont see that happening anytime in the near future. Im just raising the question. And saying that we need to talk to someone because we cant do it alone.

[Tribesman]

And saying that we need to talk to someone because we cant do it alone.

Errrrrrrr....how bout some talking with the Iranians .....you know real talking not going in with a bunch of absolute preconditions .:idea2:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Errrrrrrr....how bout some talking with the Iranians .

Did I rule them out? But if their leader thinks its his role to bring about the end of the world it makes me wonder a bit if he is really rational. What has he got to loose? He will collect his 72 virgins for sure.

[Leet Eriksson]

Did I rule them out? But if their leader thinks its his role to bring about the end of the world it makes me wonder a bit if he is really rational. What has he got to loose? He will collect his 72 virgins for sure.

You have nothing to lose either if you begin talks with Iran, at least that will give you a positive casus belli that the entire world might just agree with.

[Husar]

You have nothing to lose either if you begin talks with Iran, at least that will give you a positive casus belli that the entire world might just agree with.
I agree already.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You have nothing to lose either if you begin talks with Iran, at least that will give you a positive casus belli that the entire world might just agree with.

Again can anyone tell me where I said we shouldnt try to talk to them? War is the result of bad politicians.

[Odin]

War is the result of bad politicians.

Its nearly 1am, shouldnt you be taking the clown makeup off and heading to bed? :beam:

War is also a result of conflicting ideology as well as bad politicians, so we have the perfect storm brewing....

[Whacker]

As someone pointed out earlier, "Talking with Iran" isn't that easy. Iran is run concurrently by a number of factions, some of which don't agree with eachother. The traditional "government", as I understand it, is technically not in complete control. We could certainly engage them in talks, but depending on who comes to the table, they may honestly not be able to speak for the nation as a whole and/or make good on any agreements reached.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Its nearly 1am, shouldnt you be taking the clown makeup off and heading to bed?


Im serious. But i am checking out .


War is also a result of conflicting ideology as well as bad politicians, so we have the perfect storm brewing....

It takes politicians of one sort or another to drive these ideologies. I agree we have bad politicians and very conflicting ideologies on both sides. It does not look good from where I sit no matter who is right or wrong. I hate to think of the consequences.

[KrooK]

Gah Gawain
War is easy for everyone who never experienced it.
Iran is not dangerous for Poland IMO. It is not dangerous for anyone.
I don't remember they attacked anyone.
On the other hand USA keep attacking everyone everywhere.
Casus belli for you is situation when Iran send weapon to Iraq.
But when you attacked Iraq, didn't you sent there more weapon?
As for now 600.000 people into Iraq died due to your invasion. Nice job - you turned laic country into one big terrorist training camp. Now you are going to attack one of most predictable and stabilised countries there. Country who has nothing in common with terrorist, who has normal economy and normal consitution. And you are suprised that not everyone support you.
I think Iran is more predictable country than Israel (because they never attacked neighbours) and if USA attack, USA fail.
Why? Because USA is for me like vandal horde. They keep attacking everyone who is weak or conflicted. But they never won with united people who defend their homes.

So maybe you are dangerous for rest of the world.
Maybe we should unite and establish one great blockade of United States?

[CrossLOPER]

Just popped in here to say that, once again, I love it when people end up equating WWII to what the US fighting.


Gah Gawain
War is easy for everyone who never experienced it.
I believe he is an experienced former US Marine, actually.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I believe he is an experienced former US Marine, actually.

Yeah but serving Nam aint like fighting in a war. LOL:laugh4:

[Sarmatian]

This is a no-win situation for America. Going in alone isn't possible. Nothing short of Iran attacking America will be strong enough cassus belli for U.S. allies. And Iranians aren't that stupid. That's not in their interest.

I think U.S. have to come to peace with the fact that they can't dictate world politics anymore. I know it's hard after being an undisputed leader of the world for several decades, but things are already in motion. China, Russia, India, Brazil... Slowly are U.S. being removed from their position. After unipolar world we are moving towards multipolar world. Going to war with Iran would only speed up that process...

[Husar]

As someone pointed out earlier, "Talking with Iran" isn't that easy. Iran is run concurrently by a number of factions, some of which don't agree with eachother. The traditional "government", as I understand it, is technically not in complete control. We could certainly engage them in talks, but depending on who comes to the table, they may honestly not be able to speak for the nation as a whole and/or make good on any agreements reached.
But I don't think it's one of those splinter groups who are developing nukes.
That's a government project, so you just have to talk to the official government concerning that. And I think the nukes are the biggest issue, no?

[Divinus Arma]

The United States does not have have the political will. And Europe is too chicken to do a damn thing about anything, prefering to rely on American troops to do the job.

You mention WWII as a parallel, but how did we fight WWII? By killing everyone and bombing everything. We destroyed both the enemy's capacity to fight and their will to fight.

We are unable to destroy the muslim extermists will to fight without inflicting a loss of life that our soft culture would find intolerable.

We are screwed my friend. We won't be able to do anything until someone gets nuked. And that someone is very likely to be Israel, a country that Europe hates anyway.

[Divinus Arma]

I believe he is an experienced former US Marine, actually.

Indeed he is. Rrrrrr.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Unfortunately thats the way I see it as well. It seems europe has learned nothing from the lead up to WW2.

[KrooK]

If I remember it well Europe finally start fighting with Hitler.
USA that time was doing nothing until some Japaneese planes decreased nurmer of battleship into Pacific Fleet.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If I remember it well Europe finally start fighting with Hitler.

After they attacked your allies LOL. It wasnt our war it was yours. We come to help twice and all we get is "where the hell have you been". Then when its over. "We woulda won without you."

Just like today it was your failed diplomacy and failure to take the threat seriously that led to that war. We played little or no part in it.

[Zaknafien]

you guys still think Iran is some kind of threat? How? You just want another war, its sickening.

[Slyspy]

After they attacked your allies LOL. It wasnt our war it was yours. We come to help twice and all we get is "where the hell have you been". Then when its over. "We woulda won without you."

Just like today it was your failed diplomacy and failure to take the threat seriously that led to that war. We played little or no part in it.

Except that I don't recall the US taking that threat seriously either. In the end it took cunning domestic political wheeling-and-dealing and a declaration of war by Germany to bring the US into the war in Europe.

Before the war Hitler was the darling of those who feared communism more than anything (which was almost everyone with power and influence). Why do you think the Spanish Republicans were hung out to dry? It is easy to see pre-war diplomacy as cowardice, but in reality it was politics. The thing which you fear most is not always the true enemy.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Except that I don't recall the US taking that threat seriously either

:wall:

They werent threatening us. Thats just the point.

[Reverend Joe]

no... no... no, no, No, No, NO, NONONONONONONONONONO!

Not again! NOT AGAIN! Haven't you people had enough?! Haven't you had enough of screwing around with the world?!

mods, I hate you... you cannot imagine the profanity I wish to express here. It would curdle milk.

And as for you, Gawain... I will not speak ill of you. But you were IN Vietnam. How can you be so blind?!

One of these days, I'm going to be writing for the Washington Post, and you wil hate my guts, because I am gonna be the next shameless Gonzo journalist.

I really should blame myself as well, though... Jim Beam bourbon and the backroom do not mix. I better leave.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And as for you, Gawain... I will not speak ill of you. But you were IN Vietnam. How can you be so blind?!

Blind? Im asking all of you who think Iran is no threat the same question? Im not saying we should attack them but that if we fail to put up a united front we may have more problems than any of you care to admit to.

[Pannonian]

Blind? Im asking all of you who think Iran is no threat the same question? Im not saying we should attack them but that if we fail to put up a united front we may have more problems than any of you care to admit to.
Blame Bush and the Cry Wolf syndrome. If Iraq hadn't occurred, people might have been more willing to listen to what you're saying. As it is, we have a nasty feeling of deja vu, not of WW2, but of the run up to Iraq.

PS. I know some people who've been running an "Iran kaboom pool" since May 2003, placing their bets on when Iran (and in a parallel pool, Syria) was going to be invaded. It's taken a bit longer than expected, but then those cynics never expected the occupation to be quite this inept and to tie down so many troops for so long with so little results.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Blame Bush

Wow thats a novel idea :laugh4:

[Zaknafien]

Iran is only a threat because they make it out to be a threat, Gawain. They havent done anything and are no threat to the United States or its people, or Europe or its people for that matter. Wake up! The United States is supposed to only have wars if we are declared war on, we are not an aggressive power!

[Tribesman]

Europe is too chicken to do a damn thing about anything, prefering to rely on American troops to do the job.

Most of Europe is too sensible to go off on madcap adventures , they prefer to let the American government do stupid things with its army .


And that someone is very likely to be Israel, a country that Europe hates anyway.
When compared to the blind sycophantic love that americas government has for Israel Europes approach might indeed seem like hate , but that is only because of the warped persective from the blind love .


Just like today it was your failed diplomacy and failure to take the threat seriously that led to that war. We played little or no part in it.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Yes Gawain it was Europe who had the 14 points and Europe alone that drew up the treaty based its 14 points , the treaty that effectively guaranteed future war over disputed territories .

[Whacker]

Iran is only a threat because they make it out to be a threat, Gawain. They havent done anything and are no threat to the United States or its people, or Europe or its people for that matter. Wake up! The United States is supposed to only have wars if we are declared war on, we are not an aggressive power!

Ermm.. Define "threat". As the OP suggested and I am inclined to believe, Iran has been caught redhanded supplying arms to insurgents who are actively killing US troops. Putting aside the whole Iraq occupation debate, while that may not be an act of war, it's definitely very hostile and well down the path that leads to war. I still don't have a good answer for the ultimate question, but right now I do firmly believe that any kind of military action right now is out of the question.

[Zaknafien]

Ermm.. Define "threat". As the OP suggested and I am inclined to believe, Iran has been caught redhanded supplying arms to insurgents who are actively killing US troops. Putting aside the whole Iraq occupation debate, while that may not be an act of war, it's definitely very hostile and well down the path that leads to war. I still don't have a good answer for the ultimate question, but right now I do firmly believe that any kind of military action right now is out of the question.

Uh, wrong. Elements within Iran have been doing so. There are arms suppliers in every country in the world, my friend. Even so, these weapons are for the defence of the Shia population against Sunni militias and AQIZ death squads. Some may get used against occupation forces certainly, but if the occupying forces werent there, it wouldnt be happening would it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes Gawain it was Europe who had the 14 points and Europe alone that drew up the treaty based its 14 points , the treaty that effectively guaranteed future war over disputed territories .

Did we sign it? And if not why not? Im going to enjoy hearing this one,

[Zaknafien]

worse; we made it up. Luckily we had some smart isolationists in the senate at that time which refused to ratify the treaty. Still our mess though, Wilson was the author of post-war Europe.

[Tribesman]

Did we sign it? And if not why not? Im going to enjoy hearing this one,:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
yes .
If you want to enjoy something Gawain then think about what you write .~:doh:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

worse; we made it up.

I knew you would say that. We made it up? Did Wilson have a mouse in his pocket? Didnt the senate reject it pricesily because it had Wilsons 14 points in it? :inquisitive: Not only that but The final treaty bore little resemblance to Wilson's fourteen points.

Wilson's 14 Points vs. the Treaty of Versailles: (http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=23668)

[Husar]

Ermm.. Define "threat". As the OP suggested and I am inclined to believe, Iran has been caught redhanded supplying arms to insurgents who are actively killing US troops. Putting aside the whole Iraq occupation debate, while that may not be an act of war, it's definitely very hostile and well down the path that leads to war. I still don't have a good answer for the ultimate question, but right now I do firmly believe that any kind of military action right now is out of the question.
Well, the US supplied arms to Israel when Israel was actively killing soldiers from all it's neighbors. I think all those neighbors should try to invade the US now. And while they're at it, there are probably a whole lot of other countries whose soldiers have been fired at with american-made weapons, so they can join in as well.:dizzy2:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well, the US supplied arms to Israel when Israel was actively killing soldiers from all it's neighbors. I

Their our allies. Also the british and the french supplied both sides as well as the USSR so they have not only to attack eactother but need to have a civil war as well. Then theres the matter of israel supplying arms to Iran during the Iraqi-Iranian war .

Besides Israel was fighting a defensive war. And we didnt supply them with squat in 48, I believe they were still flying Mirages until recenty if not still.


. I think all those neighbors should try to invade the US now

And I say bring it on. :laugh4: Try being the operative word. What a joke. We cant invade Iraq succesfully and you think anyone stands a chance of invading us and winning? Im sure you wont have any trouble getting your coalition together. Come on folks step right up. Who wants to start ww3 against the US first? Put up or shut up :whip: See talk is cheap.

[KukriKhan]

Put up or shut up See talk is cheap.


Let's be a bit kinder to each other, gentlemen.

Re-reading Husar's latest post, I'm certain he had his tongue lodged firmly in his cheek, to show the irony of the world's biggest arms-supplier worrying about some other arms-dealing nation's intentions.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Re-reading Husar's latest post, I'm certain he had his tongue lodged firmly in his cheek, to show the irony of the world's biggest arms-supplier worrying about some other arms-dealing nation's intentions.

As did my reply or do you think Im really calling for people to come try to invade us? :laugh4: Im just fighting fire with fire. Anther case of moral equivilancy. Heck what made England superior to Germany before WW2 or even during it. Hitler and Germany didnt threaten anyone. They were victims of a bad peace treaty. Nobody is bad anymore. Especially its seems if they oppose the US. I notice none of you had any problem with us supplying the allies with weapons during WW2.

[Husar]

Their our allies. Also the british and the french supplied both sides as well as the USSR so they have not only to attack eactother but need to have a civil war as well. Then theres the matter of israel supplying arms to Iran during the Iraqi-Iranian war .
Maybe the Taliban are Iran's allies? So what's the problem? They have to support their allies just like you.:laugh4:
I agree about the british civil war.
And Saddam fired missiles Israel during the first gulf war, so the Iran-Iraq war thing is already covered.:2thumbsup:


Besides Israel was fighting a defensive war. And we didnt supply them with squat in 48, I believe they were still flying Mirages until recenty if not still.
The Taliban are also fighting a defensive war, I didn't say anything about 48.
Concerning the Mirages, I guess some arabian troops will have to invade France then.


And I say bring it on. :laugh4: Try being the operative word. What a joke. We cant invade Iraq succesfully and you think anyone stands a chance of invading us and winning? Im sure you wont have any trouble getting your coalition together. Come on folks step right up. Who wants to start ww3 against the US first? Put up or shut up :whip: See talk is cheap.
There is a small sentence in this part of your post that consists of three words and might give you a hint about my intention.
But it's funny to see how people from the US always get angry when anyone mentions invading the US.:laugh4:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Maybe the Taliban are Iran's allies? So what's the problem?

Is the Taliban a nation?


And Saddam fired missiles Israel during the first gulf war, so the Iran-Iraq war thing is already covered.

But shouldnt we be fighting Israel then?


The Taliban are also fighting a defensive war,

Read the above. Even if it were your not addressing my point about moral equivlancy. Everybody is good .


Concerning the Mirages, I guess some arabian troops will have to invade France then.


Using your logic its time for a free for all.


But it's funny to see how people from the US always get angry when anyone mentions invading the US.

And its funny how people not from the US are so ready to take offense. It seems sarcasm has become a lost art over there. It amazes me no end how you or for that matter Kukri can have taken me seriously there. I guess 2 smileys wasnt enough. I was laughing at your post the whole time. My point is dont dish it out if you cant take it.

[Pannonian]

As did my reply or do you think Im really calling for people to come try to invade us? :laugh4: Im just fighting fire with fire. Anther case of moral equivilancy. Heck what made England superior to Germany before WW2 or even during it. Hitler and Germany didnt threaten anyone. They were victims of a bad peace treaty. Nobody is bad anymore. Especially its seems if they oppose the US. I notice none of you had any problem with us supplying the allies with weapons during WW2.
Perhaps that's because we're not trying to start a war using that as a casus belli. If you want to start a war whilst claiming the moral high ground, the onus is on you to prove your place on that moral high ground. If you can't do that, do whatever you like, but don't expect anyone to join you, or approve what you do.

WMDs, threat to Israel, evil regime, regime change, blah blah blah, we've heard it all before, in 2002-03.

[Meneldil]

Is the Taliban a nation?

They aren't, yet you invaded a whole nation to fight them off.


I notice none of you had any problem with us supplying the allies with weapons during WW2.

Who brought the "They provide weapons to these guys who are fighting against us, we must invade them" argument ? Oh yeah, it was you.

What Husar likely meant is that we're (countries like the US, Russia, France, UK) not really entitled to say "You shall not sell weapons to my oponent !". We've been doing that for years, when we thought it was in our interest. Now, why can't Iran do the same ? Hence why

Now, you keep comparing the current situation with the pre-WWII era. Yeah, Europe is full of cowards that would rather bow before that Trully Evil Dude, and once again, we'll have to rescue them.
Weirdly, I rather think about the whole Iraq invasion. You know, when people like you, PJ, and others kept screaming "Europe is teh suxx" and other "let's invade France, these surrenderring cheese eating monkeys betrayed us. We'll kick off Saddam and establish Democracy in Teh Great Middle-East".

However, you've said that you think support from international opinion is needed for any possible incoming war. While it's a good thing that you even bother about that, well, sorry to disapoint you, but as long as Iran doesn't do anything really naughty, this isn't going to happen.

[Husar]

Is the Taliban a nation?
According to themselves they are the leaders of the nation of Afghanistan, no?


But shouldnt we be fighting Israel then?

Using your logic its time for a free for all.
See? You answered it yourself. Only one small problem since I actually derived "my" logic from Whacker's post and maybe expanded it a bit to make a point...


Read the above. Even if it were your not addressing my point about moral equivlancy. Everybody is good .
I'm fine, good to know that you are, too. Don't know about the rest.:dizzy2:


And its funny how people not from the US are so ready to take offense. It seems sarcasm has become a lost art over there. It amazes me no end how you or for that matter Kukri can have taken me seriously there. I guess 2 smileys wasnt enough. I was laughing at your post the whole time. My point is dont dish it out if you cant take it.
First off, Kukri is from the US.
And second, I wasn't offended at any point, never even said that I was.:2thumbsup: :shakehands:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Who brought the "They provide weapons to these guys who are fighting against us, we must invade them" argument ? Oh yeah, it was you.


If that were all they were doing you wouldnt hear a word out of me. Nice to ignore everything else I posted.


See? You answered it yourself. Only one small problem since I actually derived "my" logic from Whacker's post and maybe expanded it a bit to make a point...

The point being your going off on a tangent. I never said we should attack them simply because their giving arms to our enemies. In fact I didnt say we should attack them. Go on take something out of context again. Still eating humblw pie over trying to blame ww2 on the US. Yeah I know it wasnt you.


Perhaps that's because we're not trying to start a war using that as a casus belli. If you want to start a war whilst claiming the moral high ground, the onus is on you

Blah blah blah. One more time I dont want to start a war I want to avoid one. Wake up. Pay attention.


They aren't, yet you invaded a whole nation to fight them off.


A nation that they pretty much ran at the time.


"Europe is teh suxx" and other "let's invade France, these surrenderring cheese eating monkeys betrayed us. We'll kick off Saddam and establish Democracy in Teh Great Middle-East".

You must have me confused with somebody else. Though I will plead guilty about disparaging the French :laugh4: It dont take a war to get that outta me however :whip:


However, you've said that you think support from international opinion is needed for any possible incoming war. While it's a good thing that you even bother about that, well, sorry to disapoint you, but as long as Iran doesn't do anything really naughty, this isn't going to happen.

Again you misunderstand me. When I say put up a united front its in the hope they will take us seriously for once. Hoping again to avoid war not provoke it. Again I hope Im wrong and Iran is just a poor misunderstood nation as you guys seem to think.

[Pannonian]

Again you misunderstand me. When I say put up a united front its in the hope they will take us seriously for once. Hoping again to avoid war not provoke it. Again I hope Im wrong and Iran is just a poor misunderstood nation as you guys seem to think.
I have my doubts about a "united front" as a means of avoiding war. In our recent experience, said "united front", aka the Coalition of the Willing, is more likely to be used as a justification for action amounting to war. Blair's acquiescence to reasoning that everyone, even he, knew to be faulty, did nothing to prevent the invasion of Iraq, and in the opinions of many encouraged it. We do not wish for a repeat, and if there is to be a repeat, I wish for Britain to be kept out of it this time.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I have my doubts about a "united front" as a means of avoiding war. In our recent experience, said "united front", aka the Coalition of the Willing,

Thats my point. You call that a united front? Where was France,Germany and Russia just to name a few.

[Pannonian]

Thats my point. You call that a united front? Where was France,Germany and Russia just to name a few.
Bush seemed happy enough with what he had. Are you saying that, if France, Germany and the rest were on board, the US would not have invaded Iraq? Because that's what you're implying.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Bush seemed happy enough with what he had. Are you saying that, if France, Germany and the rest were on board, the US would not have invaded Iraq? Because that's what you're implying.

Im not implying anything. Im saying if they had been maybe , just maybe it might not have been necessary. Saddam didnt think we were serious either. Either that or he really was crazy. Evil yes crazy no.

[Husar]

Thats my point. You call that a united front? Where was France,Germany and Russia just to name a few.
We stayed out of that mess, and I appreciate that.
A unified diplomatic front against Iran sounds good though. It's just when someone decides to drag us into a big occupation based on lies that I would disagree, otherwise unity is fine and a good goal, I think that's also why we have troops in Afghanistan.

[PanzerJaeger]

I just hope we're supplying and arming opposition groups within Iran. If you push the right buttons, any of the muslim countries are ripe for internal chaos and destruction. We just need to encourage the idiots to kill each other instead of trying to attack us, a la Palestine. :laugh4:

[Sarmatian]

We stayed out of that mess, and I appreciate that.
A unified diplomatic front against Iran sounds good though. It's just when someone decides to drag us into a big occupation based on lies that I would disagree, otherwise unity is fine and a good goal, I think that's also why we have troops in Afghanistan.

What would be the purpose of that unified diplomatic front? To prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, if that is their goal? Most countries that would form that front are nuclear powers themselves? What moral ground though they have to ban Iran from having them? The "I am the biggest bully in a school yard and I am not going to let you grow up"?

I don't know. So far Iran hasn't done anything. To react because it might do something in the future for me is like puting an innocent man to jail because he might commit a crime in the future...

[Slyspy]

:wall:

They werent threatening us. Thats just the point.

Ah.

So Europe should act over Iran because....?

[Husar]

The "I am the biggest bully in a school yard and I am not going to let you grow up"?
I was thinking about the "I didn't threaten to annihilate several other countries, thus I'm obviously better at handling such weapons"!

[KrooK]

Gah Gawain - invasion on USA is quite easy. I have done that dozens of times into Panzer General II and Panzer General 3. You just have to win on beaches and then no one fights with you:)

Anyway why do you think we should invade Iran. You didn't respond why?
You were telling that Iran is bad because they support people who are firing American soldiers.

OK they do. Whats bad into that. Is it dangerous for Europe?
I don't think so.

These people into Iraq live into their homes and defend themselves. Iraqui army does not exist, police help terrorists. Only weapon from Iran let people defend themselves. Furthermore they can be described as same nation as most Iranians. If Poles from Belarus start fighting for their freedom, Poland should send them weapon. FOR SURE.

Anyway talking about that sending gun - haven't America done same things? I mean Iran-Contras, or Vietnam or Afghanistan. According to you Soviet Union was absolutely allowed to invade USA because USA sent weapon which was being used to kill Soviet soldiers.

Gawain - I have one mroe question.
YOu are telling that USA is able to invade Iran and win. So why you beg for help into Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Zaknafien]

well since the conversation went into this tangent, it would be nearly impossible for any nation to invade the US. the land mass is too large to control, the population too big, the city centers too expansive. plus, a majority of the population is armed to the teeth. foreign occupation would result in a massive guerilla campaign that makes iraq seem silly in comparison. if things got too hairy, dont think you wouldnt see suicide attacks either.

[Husar]

In Medieval 2, when you capture a settlemen, you always get that "exterminate" button which helps a lot against insurgents and everybody else who wants to rebel, you just need to be cruel enough.~:rolleyes:

[Sarmatian]

I was thinking about the "I didn't threaten to annihilate several other countries, thus I'm obviously better at handling such weapons"!

Ok, let's put things into perspective.

On one side we have a country which have nuclear weapons and have used them in past. On the other side we have a country that doesn't have them, and obviously, have never used them.

On one side we have a country that waged numerous offensive wars since WW2. On the other side, we have a country that hasn't done that.

I'm not a fan of Ahmadinejad, but I think that U.S. policy in the middle east is largely responsible for the situation, and not him. He is the product of Americas bad policy. Another war would only make matters worse. Times of crisis usualy brings extreme people to power... Believe me, I witnessed much of it personally...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Ok, let's put things into perspective.

On one side we have a country which have nuclear weapons and have used them in past. On the other side we have a country that doesn't have them, and obviously, have never used them.

On one side we have a country that waged numerous offensive wars since WW2. On the other side, we have a country that hasn't done that.


Yes, perspective is good. You cannot equate a theocracy with a quite appalling human rights record with the United States, however poorly the current administration is behaving.

Iran's democracy can put something of a brake on demagogues like Ahmadinejad, but it is nowhere near as effective as the USA's system of checks and balances.

Making comparisons like this only makes the moderate voice get lost in the howls of derision.


I'm not a fan of Ahmadinejad, but I think that U.S. policy in the middle east is largely responsible for the situation, and not him. He is the product of Americas bad policy. Another war would only make matters worse. Times of crisis usualy brings extreme people to power... Believe me, I witnessed much of it personally...

US policy towards Iran has made Ahmadinejad a little more secure, but he is failing at home to deliver - he was elected mainly by the poor in the hope he would improve their lot and on a populist ticket. The moderate clerics led by Rafsanjani are much stronger now that the president has done little but exhort people to "resist the satan". Most would rather eat and not have a war.

Intelligent policy would subtley reinforce the moderates while taking away the "big, bad wolf" that Ahmadinejad uses to shore up his position. Irn is years away from a practical bomb - there's no need to ratchet up pressure now. On the other hand, Rafsanjani and his ilk are pragmatists, and can therefore be bought. Buying off opponents used to be a great diplomatic strength of the USA.

As you rightly say, when threatened, most nations rally to the rabble-rousers, even if they appear barking mad.

[Husar]

On one side we have a country which have nuclear weapons and have used them in past.
That was more than 60 years ago and I dare to say that they themselves didn't know about all the effects the weapon had.
I'm not advocating an invasion of Iran, I just don't like them to have nukes, same goes for North Korea, but for them it's too late it seems.

[Sarmatian]

Yes, perspective is good. You cannot equate a theocracy with a quite appalling human rights record with the United States, however poorly the current administration is behaving.

Iran's democracy can put something of a brake on demagogues like Ahmadinejad, but it is nowhere near as effective as the USA's system of checks and balances.

Making comparisons like this only makes the moderate voice get lost in the howls of derision.

You're right, except we aren't talking about human rights. Human rights never was a decisive factor in U.S. foreigh policy. One of Americas strongest allies in the region is Saudi Arabia. Need I say more?

Anyway, I think democracy or checks and balances aren't really what's stoping countries from using nuclear weapons. I think you'll agree with me here...



US policy towards Iran has made Ahmadinejad a little more secure, but he is failing at home to deliver - he was elected mainly by the poor in the hope he would improve their lot and on a populist ticket. The moderate clerics led by Rafsanjani are much stronger now that the president has done little but exhort people to "resist the satan". Most would rather eat and not have a war.

People everywhere would rather eat and not have a war, that's not the point.
But I don't think that Iran officials can be bought. Country that has a potential to be a regional leader of a very rich part of the world, with long and proud history can't be influenced that easily...
Ahmadinejad rhetorics are essentialy the same as Bush'. "Resisting the satan" is the same as "Axis of evil". They are meant for common people. How do you think your average, everyday American would react when he hears: "Iran nuclear capability could strengthen their influence throughout the region, therefore weakening our own influence in the middle east.". He would say:" Huh! I don't want to go to war because of that!!!" But he will understand "Axis of evil", "They're going to nuke us" or "Price of gas will go up"... Smart peole should be able to understand what is the real issue and why statesmen use such rhetorics...



Intelligent policy would subtley reinforce the moderates while taking away the "big, bad wolf" that Ahmadinejad uses to shore up his position. Irn is years away from a practical bomb - there's no need to ratchet up pressure now. On the other hand, Rafsanjani and his ilk are pragmatists, and can therefore be bought. Buying off opponents used to be a great diplomatic strength of the USA.

As you rightly say, when threatened, most nations rally to the rabble-rousers, even if they appear barking mad.

This is where we disagree. You are talking about a different approach using the same strategy. I am talking about a whole different strategy where America would effectively leave middle east to the middle eastern countries...

As long as U.S. try to control middle east there are going to be strained relationships...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As long as U.S. try to control middle east there are going to be strained relationships...

How about as long as the worlds major oil supplies are located in Islamic theocracies relationships will be strained. Its not just the US who tries to control oil and the ME you know. I cant wait until they run out of oil. Again I say burn it as fast as we can . Get off oil now.

[Tribesman]

Thats my point. You call that a united front? Where was France,Germany and Russia just to name a few.
Where were they indeed .
Oh yeah they turned up at he meetings , listened to what was said , and decided what was being said was of the bullexcrement variety .
And guess what , they was right .
But some muppets wanted to believe a pile of tripe instead , so the question is Gawain how stupid were those governments who were not Germany France Russia ....to name just a few ?

You ended up with the coilition of the incredibly dumb :idea2:

[Sarmatian]

How about as long as the worlds major oil supplies are located in Islamic theocracies relationships will be strained.

Could be... How about we try that approach for half a century for a change and see what happens?



Its not just the US who tries to control oil and the ME you know. I cant wait until they run out of oil. Again I say burn it as fast as we can . Get off oil now.
Yep, but at the moment US are the only one who is mostly successful. and only one who goes to war when they aren't...

[Major Robert Dump]

China is doing the same thing as Iran.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

China is doing the same thing as Iran.

Evidence? Mind you, I trust the Chinese to be squarely for China on all things and do NOT consider them incapable of directly arming our opponents etc. -- just interested in hearing what you know.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Doesnt the question really boil down to is arming ones enemies in a time of war just reason to declare war on those who are arming said enemy. I would have to say yes. That does not mean that you have to.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Wow, what a twisted discussion this has become.

Banquo: Thanks for a good post as to the relative merits of the USA (warts and all) v (the theocratic quasi-republic of Iran). Good point on Ah' having issue internally -- and your suggestion that the USA serves as a great external distraction from this -- a classic ploy of governing.

Zak: How far isolationism? Isolationism a la GW? A la Monroe/JQA? A la Harding? Are any such stances practical? If we never use armed force unless directly attacked -- and I'll credit you with knowing that nobody would declare war before attacking us as the rest of the world is not peopled with idiots -- what constitutes an attack worthy of response? Do we use TR's definition? Jefferson's? Do we fight for our allies? Do we repudiate all military alliances? What about the territories we own that are not incorporated into the 50 states? Do you really believe that a fully isolationist policy by the USA will generate a foreign affairs context wherein we are largely left alone?

Sarmatian: Banquo's response to you was on point. While the USA has, indeed, been involved in a number of wars that could be categorized as "offensive" in that we have intervened in the affairs of other nations that could be labeled as "internal" and, some would argue, none of our business [Zak' for example], any comparison falls short. The USA has waged VERY few wars of conquest and no such effort since the beginning of the 2nd World War.

Yes, we are the only nation known to have used nuclear weapons against an enemy. As has been said elsewhere, the employment of these weapons was an effort to minimize US casualties and bring a more rapid end to the war. The persistent health effects were, at best, poorly understood. Please note that the USA has NEVER used these weapons against an opponent subsequent to learning these lessons, despite the fact that the use of nuclear weapons was requested by our field commanders (MacArthur following the invasion of North Korea by Chinese "volunteers" -- lots of tactically useful targets), despite the fact that their use would have been "easier" in achieving military/vengeance objectives (Hanoi 1966-1970; Cuba 1962), and despite the fact that their use was justified under long-stated US policy (Kabul 2001).

Tribes: Simple question. Do you believe that Ireland, NATO (other than the USA), and/or the European union would respond militarily if Iran were to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon? Note: I'll stipulate that such an event is quite unlikely in terms of known capability, stated Iranian policy, and because Iranian best interests would not be served thereby. Second question: Should Europe do so in such an instance?

Krook: The CCCP had more than enough "legal" reason to declare war on the USA had they wished to do so. Not only did we actively foment rebellion to Soviet authority in their possessions, we were at war with their communist allies on a number of occasions, illegally blockaded Cuba, and were part of a multi-national invasion force that attempted to break the Soviet regime in 1919-1920.

General note:
Europe hasn't really been happy with US foreign policy since 1980. During his brief tenure, James Earl Carter was the only President since Washington to establish -- and mostly stick to (his admin wasn't perfect here either) -- a foreign policy that was driven by moral principle (human rights primacy) and eschewed military action in nearly all circumstances. Carter has thus spoiled the Eurpoean "audience" for all subsequent efforts since his was so well aligned with their desires/precedence.


Whew....that took a bit.

[Tribesman]

Tribes: Simple question. Do you believe that Ireland, NATO (other than the USA), and/or the European union would respond militarily if Iran were to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon? Note: I'll stipulate that such an event is quite unlikely in terms of known capability, stated Iranian policy, and because Iranian best interests would not be served thereby. Second question: Should Europe do so in such an instance?

OK leaving aside that Irelands army deploying would mean a serious defecit of barmen bouncers DJs and taxi drivers , what possible practical purpose could Tehran have for nuking Israel ?
Since the rhetoric from Iran is no different as that from dozens of other countries then what is the big deal ?Saudi is openly pursueing nuclear capabilty , it funds terrorist it is not a nice government , it wants to be the regional plyer ....whats the big deal with Iran ???? Its the big bad bogeyman syndrome..not only Mislims gonna get ya .... its ...Iranian Muslims gonna get ya .

Pure unadulterated bullexcrement .

They got what they wanted already , America hamstrung , the UN even more divided , Saddam gone , Taliban struggling , Mussharaff threatened , China wanting cheap oil , their own influence expanded (plus they got some bloody good arms deals for cheap oil and technology transfer) .
In short they played the game with a stacked deck and have won nearly every hand so far .....they are pushing to carry on the game knowing how the deck is stacked , until the US decides to back out of Irans game and enter a fairer game with a fresh set of cards Iran is going to keep on winning ....unless of course america decides to turn over the whole table ...but Iran knows that the US cannot afford that and is willing to call the bluff of table tossing .

[Sarmatian]

Sarmatian: Banquo's response to you was on point. While the USA has, indeed, been involved in a number of wars that could be categorized as "offensive" in that we have intervened in the affairs of other nations that could be labeled as "internal"

It could be that US might have... What is your opinion? Do you think that every war US have waged since WW2 is justified by human rights and democracy? Do you think that is the real reason?



and, some would argue, none of our business [Zak' for example], any comparison falls short. The USA has waged VERY few wars of conquest and no such effort since the beginning of the 2nd World War.


Conquest is impractical and almost impossible today. It is much more practical to install a friendly goverment and take control of their resources or their strategic position or something else.

[Sarmatian]

Doesnt the question really boil down to is arming ones enemies in a time of war just reason to declare war on those who are arming said enemy. I would have to say yes. That does not mean that you have to.

So in your opinion Iran has just reason to declare war on US because US supported Saddam during Iraq's war with Iran?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So in your opinion Iran has just reason to declare war on US because US supported Saddam during Iraq's war with Iran?

With out a doubt. In fact from the very first post Ive maintained that a state of undeclared war does exist between the two. More than that we are advocating rebellion and regime change in their nation. If anyone has reason to declare war on anyone its them on us. This however does not mean that their cause is just.

[Ronin]

With out a doubt. In fact from the very first post Ive maintained that a state of undeclared war does exist between the two. More than that we are advocating rebellion and regime change in their nation. If anyone has reason to declare war on anyone its them on us. This however does not mean that their cause is just.


Just because their cause isn´t just that doesn´t mean that yours necessarily is either.

my enemies enemy is no necessarily my friend.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Just because their cause isn´t just that doesn´t mean that yours necessarily is either.

my enemies enemy is no necessarily my friend.


I dont have a cause :laugh4:

[Kommodus]

Doesnt the question really boil down to is arming ones enemies in a time of war just reason to declare war on those who are arming said enemy. I would have to say yes. That does not mean that you have to.

Perhaps the question does boil down to this, but I would still say no.

During Vietnam the Viet Cong received arms from China, but did the US declare war on China? Even in Korea, when China sent large numbers of troops to fight the US, there was never a declaration of war between the US and China, and neither country invaded the other. The US sent arms to Afghanistan to resist Soviet efforts there, but the USSR never declared war on the US because of it. We've also given support to Isreal in its wars with the Arab states, while the USSR supported the Arabs, but this did not result in war between the US and Russia.

The reason for fighting a proxy war is that you don't want to be involved in open war, potentially fought on your own soil. There's no reason why every such conflict needs to spread.

War is an extremely destructive, costly, and messy affair. It should be hard to wage it - you should need an extremely compelling justification.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Perhaps the question does boil down to this, but I would still say no.


You seem to be missing an important part of the equation .



During Vietnam the Viet Cong received arms from China, but did the US declare war on China? Even in Korea, when China sent large numbers of troops to fight the US, there was never a declaration of war between the US and China, and neither country invaded the other.

Absolutely true.


The US sent arms to Afghanistan to resist Soviet efforts there, but the USSR never declared war on the US because of it.

Right again


We've also given support to Isreal in its wars with the Arab states, while the USSR supported the Arabs, but this did not result in war between the US and Russia.

Wow your on a roll. But you left out Korea were soviet pilots were actually engaging us in aerial combat and shooting down are planes. Still no war hmmmm.


Maybe you should read my quote again

Doesnt the question really boil down to is arming ones enemies in a time of war just reason to declare war on those who are arming said enemy. I would have to say yes. That does not mean that you have to.


The reason for fighting a proxy war is that you don't want to be involved in open war, potentially fought on your own soil.

And thats exactly whats going on now. But war is war. Its just low key at the moment.

I dont see anything that is contrary to what I posted here.

[Zaknafien]

Zak: How far isolationism? Isolationism a la GW? A la Monroe/JQA? A la Harding? Are any such stances practical? If we never use armed force unless directly attacked -- and I'll credit you with knowing that nobody would declare war before attacking us as the rest of the world is not peopled with idiots -- what constitutes an attack worthy of response? Do we use TR's definition? Jefferson's? Do we fight for our allies? Do we repudiate all military alliances? What about the territories we own that are not incorporated into the 50 states? Do you really believe that a fully isolationist policy by the USA will generate a foreign affairs context wherein we are largely left alone?

Yes, we are the only nation known to have used nuclear weapons against an enemy. As has been said elsewhere, the employment of these weapons was an effort to minimize US casualties and bring a more rapid end to the war. The persistent health effects were, at best, poorly understood. Please note that the USA has NEVER used these weapons against an opponent subsequent to learning these lessons, despite the fact that the use of nuclear weapons was requested by our field commanders (MacArthur following the invasion of North Korea by Chinese "volunteers" -- lots of tactically useful targets), despite the fact that their use would have been "easier" in achieving military/vengeance objectives (Hanoi 1966-1970; Cuba 1962), and despite the fact that their use was justified under long-stated US policy (Kabul 2001).

General note:
Europe hasn't really been happy with US foreign policy since 1980. During his brief tenure, James Earl Carter was the only President since Washington to establish -- and mostly stick to (his admin wasn't perfect here either) -- a foreign policy that was driven by moral principle (human rights primacy) and eschewed military action in nearly all circumstances. Carter has thus spoiled the Eurpoean "audience" for all subsequent efforts since his was so well aligned with their desires/precedence.


Whew....that took a bit.

Wait a minute, did you just say the US hasn't had wars of conquest since WWII? Are you serious? Here's a list:

1946 Iran Troops deployed in northern province.
1946-1949 China Major US army presence of about 100,000 troops, fighting, training and advising local combatants.
1947-1949 Greece US forces wage a 3-year counterinsurgency campaign.
1948 Italy Heavy CIA involvement in national elections.
1948-1954 Philippines Commando operations, "secret" CIA war.
1950-1953 Korea Major forces engaged in war in Korean peninsula.
1953 Iran CIA overthrows government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. Read More
1954 Vietnam Financial and materiel support for colonial French military operations, leads eventually to direct US military involvement.
1954 Guatemala CIA overthrows the government of President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman.
1958 Lebanon US marines and army units totaling 14,000 land.
1958 Panama Clashes between US forces in Canal Zone and local citizens.
1959 Haiti Marines land.
1960 Congo CIA-backed overthrow and assassination of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba.
1960-1964 Vietnam Gradual introduction of military advisors and special forces.
1961 Cuba CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion.
1962 Cuba Nuclear threat and naval blockade.
1962 Laos CIA-backed military coup.
1963 Ecuador CIA backs military overthrow of President Jose Maria Valesco Ibarra.
1964 Panama Clashes between US forces in Canal Zone and local citizens.
1964 Brazil CIA-backed military coup overthrows the government of Joao Goulart and Gen. Castello Branco takes power. Read More
1965-1975 Vietnam Large commitment of military forces, including air, naval and ground units numbering up to 500,000+ troops. Full-scale war, lasting for ten years.
1965 Indonesia CIA-backed army coup overthrows President Sukarno and brings Gen. Suharto to power.
1965 Congo CIA backed military coup overthrows President Joseph Kasavubu and brings Joseph Mobutu to power.
1965 Dominican Republic 23,000 troops land.
1965-1973 Laos Bombing campaign begin, lasting eight years.
1966 Ghana CIA-backed military coup ousts President Kwame Nkrumah.
1966-1967 Guatemala Extensive counter-insurgency operation.
1969-1975 Cambodia CIA supports military coup against Prince Sihanouk, bringing Lon Nol to power. Intensive bombing for seven years along border with Vietnam.
1970 Oman Counter-insurgency operation, including coordination with Iranian marine invasion.
1971-1973 Laos Invasion by US and South Vietnames forces.
1973 Chile CIA-backed military coup ousts government of President Salvador Allende. Gen. Augusto Pinochet comes to power.
1975 Cambodia Marines land, engage in combat with government forces.
1976-1992 Angola Military and CIA operations.
1980 Iran Special operations units land in Iranian desert. Helicopter malfunction leads to aborting of planned raid.
1981 Libya Naval jets shoot down two Libyan jets in maneuvers over the Mediterranean.
1981-1992 El Salvador CIA and special forces begin a long counterinsurgency campaign.
1981-1990 Nicaragua CIA directs exile "Contra" operations. US air units drop sea mines in harbors.
1982-1984 Lebanon Marines land and naval forces fire on local combatants.
1983 Grenada Military forces invade Grenada.
1983-1989 Honduras Large program of military assistance aimed at conflict in Nicaragua.
1984 Iran Two Iranian jets shot down over the Persian Gulf.
1986 Libya US aircraft bomb the cities of Tripoli and Benghazi, including direct strikes at the official residence of President Muamar al Qadaffi.
1986 Bolivia Special Forces units engage in counter-insurgency.
1987-1988 Iran Naval forces block Iranian shipping. Civilian airliner shot down by missile cruiser.
1989 Libya Naval aircraft shoot down two Libyan jets over Gulf of Sidra.
1989 Philippines CIA and Special Forces involved in counterinsurgency.
1989-1990 Panama 27,000 troops as well as naval and air power used to overthrow government of President Noriega.
1990 Liberia Troops deployed.
1990-1991 Iraq Major military operation, including naval blockade, air strikes; large number of troops attack Iraqi forces in occupied Kuwait.
1991-2003 Iraq Control of Iraqi airspace in north and south of the country with periodic attacks on air and ground targets.
1991 Haiti CIA-backed military coup ousts President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
1992-1994 Somalia Special operations forces intervene.
1992-1994 Yugoslavia Major role in NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
1993-1995 Bosnia Active military involvement with air and ground forces.
1994-1996 Haiti Troops depose military rulers and restore President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to office.
1995 Croatia Krajina Serb airfields attacked.
1996-1997 Zaire (Congo) Marines involved in operations in eastern region of the country.
1997 Liberia Troops deployed.
1998 Sudan Air strikes destroy country's major pharmaceutical plant.
1998 Afghanistan Attack on targets in the country.
1998 Iraq Four days of intensive air and missile strikes.
1999 Yugoslavia Major involvement in NATO air strikes.
2001 Macedonia NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels.
2001 Afghanistan Air attacks and ground operations oust Taliban government and install a new regime.
2003 Iraq Invasion with large ground, air and naval forces ousts government of Saddam Hussein and establishes new government.
2003-present Iraq Occupation force of 150,000 troops in protracted counter-insurgency war
2004 Haiti Marines land. CIA-backed forces overthrow President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Not to mention over a hundred and fifty military installations around the world in what can be described as neo-military-colonies.


But I digress. Your point about nuclear weapons---the atomic bomb was not used to 'bring and end' to the war with Japan. The Japanese had been trying to surrender for over a month before the atom bomb was first dropped. It was used as a message to the Russians, nothing more. But most people decry the atom bomb without even remembering the hundreds of thousands who were killed in the fire-bombing of Tokyo, which was a blatant act of wanton destruction in a city made of wood and paper. :thumbsdown:

[Husar]

But I digress. Your point about nuclear weapons---the atomic bomb was not used to 'bring and end' to the war with Japan. The Japanese had been trying to surrender for over a month before the atom bomb was first dropped. It was used as a message to the Russians, nothing more. But most people decry the atom bomb without even remembering the hundreds of thousands who were killed in the fire-bombing of Tokyo, which was a blatant act of wanton destruction in a city made of wood and paper. :thumbsdown:
I've always been told that the estimated casualties of an invasion into Japan were about a million and that's why they used the nukes to make Japan give up.
Now I'm mcurious about your sources because I hear that for the first time.:inquisitive:

[Zaknafien]

here's just a couple:


"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But I digress. Your point about nuclear weapons---the atomic bomb was not used to 'bring and end' to the war with Japan. The Japanese had been trying to surrender for over a month before the atom bomb was first dropped. It was used as a message to the Russians, nothing more. But most people decry the atom bomb without even remembering the hundreds of thousands who were killed in the fire-bombing of Tokyo, which was a blatant act of wanton destruction in a city made of wood and paper

This is a bunch of bollocks and one of the most mistaken things youve ever posted here. This has been discussed many a time and those who support your theory are always totally thrashed by the end of the discussion.


I've always been told that the estimated casualties of an invasion into Japan were about a million and that's why they used the nukes to make Japan give up.

And thats not count Japanese Casualities. It saved lives on both sides. The japs were not about to surrender. I lived there for a year and these people dont even think they lost the war :laugh4:

[Zaknafien]

Uh, wrong Gawain. I suggest you research the topic of Japan's peace negotiations. Japan was working on peace negotiations with the Allies through its Moscow ambassador in at the latest July of 1945. Truman knew of these developments, the US having broken the Japanese code years earlier, all of Japan's military and diplomatic messages were being intercepted.


On July 13, 1945, Foreign Minister Togo said: "Unconditional surrender (giving up all sovereignty) is the only obstacle to peace."

Truman knew this, and the war could have ended by simply conceding a post-war figurehead position for the emperor ­ a leader regarded as a deity in Japan.

Admiral William Leahy, top military aide to President Truman, said in his war memoirs, I Was There:


"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. My own feeling is that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."

And General Dwight Eisenhower agreed.

Truman proceeded with the plans to use the bombs, but he never officially ordered the Nagasaki bomb that followed Hiroshima only three days later. There are a number of factors that helped Truman make his decision.

1 The US had made a huge investment in time, mind and money ($2,000,000,000 in 1940 dollars) to produce the bombs, and there was no inclination ­ and no guts ­ to stop the momentum.


2 The US military ­ as did its citizens ­ had a bloodthirsty appetite for revenge because of Pearl Harbor. Mercy wasn't the mind-set of these professed Christians, and the missions were accomplished ­ with glee

.
3 The Nagasaki bomb was a plutonium bomb and Hiroshima's was uranium. Scientific curiosity certainly was a major factor for the mass slaughter of the Nagasaki community. The decision to use both bombs had obviously been made well in advance. The three day interval was unconscionably inadequate ­ Japan being in shambles in its communications and transportation capabilities ­ and besides, no one, not even the Japanese high command, fully understood what had happened at Hiroshima.


4 The Russians had proclaimed their intent to enter the war with Japan 90 days after V- Day, which would have been Aug. 8, two days after Hiroshima. Indeed, Russia did declare war on August 8 and was marching across Manchuria when Nagasaki was incinerated. The US didn't want Japan surrendering to anybody else, especially a future enemy, so the first nuclear "messages" of the infantile Cold War were sent. Russia indeed received less of the spoils of war, and the two superpowers were mired in mutual moral bankruptcy and economic near-bankruptcy for the rest of the century.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Uh, wrong Gawain. I suggest you research the topic of Japan's peace negotiations. Japan was working on peace negotiations with the Allies through its Moscow ambassador in at the latest July of 1945. Truman knew of these developments, the US having broken the Japanese code years earlier, all of Japan's military and diplomatic messages were being intercepted.

Uh wrong Zak
As Ive said we have had this topic disscussed for years here before you arrived. Ive read just about everything there is on the matter. This thing usually goes on for pages and pages and always winds up the same. Your ideas are shot to pieces. I cant wait until Redleg gets a look at this.

You should go start a thread on in in the appropriate forum and see the reaction.

Im not going to hijack this thread.

[Slyspy]

here's just a couple:

Nimitz says that the bombs were of no military value since Japan was already beaten and putting out peace feelers. That quote does not say that the bombs were unecessary. Likewise the second quote, which also indicates that Japan was beaten and ready to surrender. Again, this does not mean that the bombs were unecessary if the Allies were to get the terms they wanted as quickly as possible.

I would like to know what those two gentlemen thought at the time, rather than what they have written retrospectively and with the benefit of hindsight.

[Pannonian]

Nimitz says that the bombs were of no military value since Japan was already beaten and putting out peace feelers. That quote does not say that the bombs were unecessary. Likewise the second quote, which also indicates that Japan was beaten and ready to surrender. Again, this does not mean that the bombs were unecessary if the Allies were to get the terms they wanted as quickly as possible.

I would like to know what those two gentlemen thought at the time, rather than what they have written retrospectively and with the benefit of hindsight.
Watch World At War, which tells the same story as related by the secretaries of the Japanese PM and IIRC the US president.

[Zaknafien]

You could try and whitewash Hiroshima all you want. Nagasaki was a little different and amounts to blatant murder.

But there is no way to describe the fire-bombing of Tokyo than outright terrorism.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But there is no way to describe the fire-bombing of Tokyo than outright terrorism.

Here we agree. The same can be said for Dresden.

[Zaknafien]

for those of you unfamilliar with this oft-overlooked war crime, here is a brief description from Wiki: Note the deliberate targeting of the civilian population.


After 2 hours of bombardment, Tokyo was engulfed in a firestorm. The fires were so hot they would ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. Many women were wearing what were called 'air-raid turbans' around their heads and the heat would ignite those turbans like a wick on a candle. The Japanese War History office estimated that the incendiary bombing of Tokyo led to 72,489 Japanese dead.[4] This may have been the most devastating single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the firebombing of Dresden.



atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were at least partially intended to force Japan to capitulate immediately, fire-bombing, which killed more civilians in total, was carried out as a long-term strategy to destroy Japan's ability to produce war materials as well as to undermine the Japanese government's will to continue the war. In the context of total war, the large number of Japanese civilians killed by strategic bombing was seen as acceptable by the American administration. When reflecting on the campaign after the war, some expressed doubts about the morality of the firebombing. Curtis LeMay later said: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal."[5]

[Odin]

Note the deliberate targeting of the civilian population.

Targeting civilians while not pleasant, often has the desired effect of sapping the backbone of support for the enemy government. It often fails, but has been a tested wartime tactic for many centuries, WWII application happened to be more devestating due to the new mechnisms of war.

(see shermans march ACW).

[Zaknafien]

well certainly, I know why civilians are targeted, and agree it works. Its still terrorism though. The desire to cause fear and change political will by a deliberate violent targeting of the civilian populace. The Allies are no different than Al Qaeda in this regard; its something we should just accept and move on.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Both cities could be seen to be military industrial complexes. Its hard to perform presicion bombing with nukes :laugh4:

[Husar]

Both cities could be seen to be military industrial complexes. Its hard to perform presicion bombing with nukes :laugh4:
Well, it's hard to cut butter with a big inflatable ball.

[Slyspy]

Of course in those days there was no such thing as precision bombing even with conventional weapons, especially if you are talking about strategic bombing.

Edit:

Damn *insert name of enemy here* hiding their military industry and government apparatus in the middle of civilian areas.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Of course in those days there was no such thing as precision bombing even with conventional weapons, especially if you are talking about strategic bombing.

In fact I believe only the Americans even really attempted it. The Brits gave it a quick try and said NVM.

[Don Corleone]

Zak, I have a really hard time figuring you out. If you truly believe 1/3 of the accusations you level against the American government, not just now, but throughout history, why don't you grow a pair and stop supporting an evil regime (that apparently has never done any good)?

I'm not angry as I'm asking this statement. Granted, sometimes your incessant "America is the most evil, repugnant regime to ever exist and her crimes are far greater than the sum total of all others in history" screeds do get on my nerves. Its more a matter of I'm having a really hard time placing you.

You're clearly intelligent. You're not simply parroting what somebody has fed you. You're forceful and indepdent, your actions speak to your ability to act in accord with your convictions.

So why continue the hypocricy? If we're so wretched and evil, why do you continue to kill Afghans in our name? If your beloved, noble Taliban are the only legitmate authority in Afghanistan, why don't you go fight for them? If Iran has a legimate claim to reestablishing the Caliphate as AJ claims, why not help them out? Hell, why not go fight for those freedom fighters Al Queda you're always defending?

I'm serious. At a certain level, who pays you to pull the trigger says a lot about you. Frankly, I'd have more respect for you if you'd resolve your hesitancy and go start fighting for the side you clearly support.

[Tribesman]

In fact I believe only the Americans even really attempted it. The Brits gave it a quick try and said NVM.
In fact once again you are wrong .
So Gawain which RAF bomber groups did the US specifically request be transfered to the far east because of their expertise and experience in prescision bombing which far surpased that of the USAAF ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

In fact once again you are wrong .
So Gawain which RAF bomber groups did the US specifically request be transfered to the far east because of their expertise and experience in prescision bombing which far surpased that of the USAAF ?

I knew I was to lucky having escaped your last post :laugh4:

I dont know enlighten me. And exactly where and when did they develop this? What bomb site did they use and what aircraft and in what year and month did they go there? ?

Besides you know what Im talking about . They tried precision daylight bombing before we did and were ripped to pieces and went to night time bombing. We came over and bombed by day while they bombed at night. Now maybe you can find a few groups that went to the Pacific but trying to claim that it was the Brits who were most responsible for it is ridiculous. So please being as Im a WW2 nut inform me of these groups.

[Blodrast]

Zak, I have a really hard time figuring you out. If you truly believe 1/3 of the accusations you level against the American government, not just now, but throughout history, why don't you grow a pair and stop supporting an evil regime (that apparently has never done any good)?

I'm not angry as I'm asking this statement. Granted, sometimes your incessant "America is the most evil, repugnant regime to ever exist and her crimes are far greater than the sum total of all others in history" screeds do get on my nerves. Its more a matter of I'm having a really hard time placing you.

You're clearly intelligent. You're not simply parroting what somebody has fed you. You're forceful and indepdent, your actions speak to your ability to act in accord with your convictions.

So why continue the hypocricy? If we're so wretched and evil, why do you continue to kill Afghans in our name? If your beloved, noble Taliban are the only legitmate authority in Afghanistan, why don't you go fight for them? If Iran has a legimate claim to reestablishing the Caliphate as AJ claims, why not help them out? Hell, why not go fight for those freedom fighters Al Queda you're always defending?

I'm serious. At a certain level, who pays you to pull the trigger says a lot about you. Frankly, I'd have more respect for you if you'd resolve your hesitancy and go start fighting for the side you clearly support.

I can't speak for Zaknafien, obviously, but I can answer you from my perspective. I suspect his might be similar at least in some points, but again I'll let him speak for himself.
I'm aware you asked him, but I'm guessing you asked because you're interested in understanding how an individual mind's works in general, rather than in his specific case only.

The short and simple answer is this: country != government.
I can love my country, I can love its people (however flawed they may be), but has no bearing on how I feel towards an administration, or a government.
I can love my country and hate its government.
I'm in a somewhat similar situation, the emphasis being on "somewhat".

Just like Zak, I dislike the deeds and policies of several administrations of my country, not just the current one.

As to your question regarding why not go to "the other side", well, it's simple: because you love your people and your country, and you want them to be on the good side. You are not going to fix the problems in your country by going to another country. If you really care about your country, then you'll stay there and fight to fix those problems. If, in your mind, that implies being opposed to the gov't, then so be it.

I believe that your questions, Don, rely on identifying "country" with "government", which, for some people, are two very very different things. From what I've seen of his posts, Zak mostly spoke against various policies of various administration, not against the US itself, or its people, or what it stands for.

Again, this applies to me as well to some extent, I can't speak on his behalf, nor am I trying to guess his reasons.

Whew, I'm impressed with myself, I managed to give an answer in less than 100000 words.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But the question remains if he really believes all these things should he at least not resign his commission. How can he serve such a master? If I thought that during Nam I would have been in Canada instead. Surely not in the Marines.

[Blodrast]

Well, I'll play devil's (or Zak's :laugh4:) advocate: because even though he may not like the current administration, it will be gone in a year or so, and then his skills can be put to good use by the new masters - which will hopefully be better.

[Tribesman]

Besides you know what Im talking about .
Then write what you are talking about instead of rubbish like......In fact I believe only the Americans even really attempted it. The Brits gave it a quick try and said NVM. :yes:


but trying to claim that it was the Brits who were most responsible for it is ridiculous.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: having trouble reading are you ?

So please being as Im a WW2 nut inform me of these groups.
If you were a WW2 nut you wouldn't repeatedly make claims that are contrary to fact

[KukriKhan]

Steady lads. These tangents, though interesting, have little bearing on Iran’s War Against The United States, the stated topic. I beg your mercy for the poor readers of this thread, who are more numerous than the half-dozen posters currently active.

Discussions of WWII precision bombing, army commissions, and us imperialism belong in other threads. Back to topic please.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

hen write what you are talking about instead of rubbish like......In fact I believe only the Americans even really attempted it. The Brits gave it a quick try and said NVM.

As usual you have done nothing but make accusations. I said the British tried it but not for a sustained period like we did. Take it as you like.


having trouble reading are you ?

With your posts thats always a problem.


f you were a WW2 nut you wouldn't repeatedly make claims that are contrary to fact

Well I asked you to prove me wrong. Come on step up to the plate. I cant even find many refferences to any RAF heavy bomber groups in the Pacific until after VE day. I really am interested.

[KukriKhan]

Very well. The word "Iran" has appeared two times in the past 25 posts, spanning 15 hours; therefore I assume we have exhausted discussion about the topic.

Topic closed. Thanks for all contributions. :bow: Have a fine weekend.